This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
Not a review, but "that many reports and academic publications were produced by Fox and collaborators in order to obtain both scientific and financial support for truths?" would make a cracking
April Fools' hook.--Launchballer13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
very clever
Launchballer, that would indeed be a fun suggestion thank you! And, if we were closer to April now I would have liked to recommend it. But on balance I’d prefer to have this published sooner rather than later - this is my first proposal for a DidYouKnow after all.
Ennegma (
talk)
08:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello
user:Kimikel. I have made some minor adjustments to sections that were highlighted in the report you linked. However, there are several things that the Earwig tool highlights which are technical terms (e.g. "a primary standard cryogenic radiometer"; official names/proper nouns (e.g. "Cryogenic Solar Absolute Radiometer (CSAR)"; or direct quotes to either scientific descriptions (e.g. "constrain and improve retrieval algorithms") or important but non-encyclopedic-style phrases (e.g. "the heart of the calibration system"). Most importantly, there is a blockquote which describes the two primary objectives of the whole satellite - and because these sentences are scientifically specific, I didn't think it would be appropriate to paraphrase them or abridge them more than I already have. I note that
User:CFA left a note
on the article's talkpage two weeks ago that says "Note to future editors: Earwig scores high because of the large block quote in the Science section. There are no actual copyvios." I hope that is sufficient adjustment and explanation for this review process. Thank you.
Approving hook. I was aware of the block quote and scientific names contributing to the earwig, but your latest edit removed some of the phrasings that I was talking about. This article is now good to go. Thank you for you nomination
Ennegma -
Kimikel (
talk)
12:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work! Note to future editors:
Earwig scores high because of the large block quote in the Science section. There are no actual copyvios.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
Not a review, but "that many reports and academic publications were produced by Fox and collaborators in order to obtain both scientific and financial support for truths?" would make a cracking
April Fools' hook.--Launchballer13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
very clever
Launchballer, that would indeed be a fun suggestion thank you! And, if we were closer to April now I would have liked to recommend it. But on balance I’d prefer to have this published sooner rather than later - this is my first proposal for a DidYouKnow after all.
Ennegma (
talk)
08:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello
user:Kimikel. I have made some minor adjustments to sections that were highlighted in the report you linked. However, there are several things that the Earwig tool highlights which are technical terms (e.g. "a primary standard cryogenic radiometer"; official names/proper nouns (e.g. "Cryogenic Solar Absolute Radiometer (CSAR)"; or direct quotes to either scientific descriptions (e.g. "constrain and improve retrieval algorithms") or important but non-encyclopedic-style phrases (e.g. "the heart of the calibration system"). Most importantly, there is a blockquote which describes the two primary objectives of the whole satellite - and because these sentences are scientifically specific, I didn't think it would be appropriate to paraphrase them or abridge them more than I already have. I note that
User:CFA left a note
on the article's talkpage two weeks ago that says "Note to future editors: Earwig scores high because of the large block quote in the Science section. There are no actual copyvios." I hope that is sufficient adjustment and explanation for this review process. Thank you.
Approving hook. I was aware of the block quote and scientific names contributing to the earwig, but your latest edit removed some of the phrasings that I was talking about. This article is now good to go. Thank you for you nomination
Ennegma -
Kimikel (
talk)
12:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work! Note to future editors:
Earwig scores high because of the large block quote in the Science section. There are no actual copyvios.