Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter/archive1

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

I believe this article has reached the point now that it is ready for FA status. It is perhaps the best article with respect to a spacecraft on all of Wikipedia, and has recently been revised to include all of the necessary things. I believe it to cover the important information on the topic, cover it accurately, and with a neutral standpoint. Tuvas 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review is here. Jtmichcock 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Looks like a pretty good article, but given that the mission is still in progress, and in its eventful early stages, I don't think we can consider this "stable" (criterion 2e of What is a featured article?). Statements regarding the current activities of the spacecraft (e.g. "Aerobraking is currently being conducted") will need to be substantially altered in the future to reflect changed events. I'd recommend holding off on this and waiting until the spacecraft has entered the later stages of its mission. --Robth^Talk 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 2(e) states as follows:

(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.

As described in the article, the Orbiter is operational and circling Mars presently and is intended to reach a fixed orbit in November of this year. So the threat that it would "change significantly from day to day" is not present. Likewise, there have been no "edit wars." So I can't see 2(e) being directly applicable. Like the Hubble Telescope, which is a featured article and where research is ongoing, new discoveries are always being made and added as appropriate to the article. Jtmichcock 14:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I agree that a case can be made; this is, however, a different sort of case than the Hubble, since the Hubble has reached a stage in its mission where the regular routine has been long established, and major changes to the article are not likely to be necessary; this, as I noted above, is still in the early stages of the mission, and a large portion of the mission description is focused on events still in the future. This will need to be reworked and quite possibly substantially altered in the relatively near future. So that's my take on it; if, however, most other people feel that it does meet the criterion, I'm wiliing to withdraw my objection. --Robth^Talk 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—needs a good copy-edit. Examples from the top:

Second sentence: why write "dollars" and "$"?
"hi-resolution"—nope, not like "hi-fi".
"The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) launched"—Why tell us for a second time at the top that "MRO" is the abbreviation? Why spell it out here, anyway? Below I see that it's in italic. Please use a consistent term throughout. "launched" is not intransitive (it must be "was launched").
It could do with more commas, e.g., "Fifty-six minutes after launch the Centaur completed".
"The launch was postponed from the previous day"—Which word is redundant?

The whole thing, not just these examples, needs fixing. Tony 14:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Per Tony Chipka 15:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it appears as though it still needs a bit more work. I guess I'll toss it back to the peer review for a while, to try and get some things a bit better. I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia, this is the first time I've come close to trying anything such as getting a FA up there, guess I'll wait and try again later. Thanks for the input! Tuvas 15:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]