Talk:GOES-16
GOES-16 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 3, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GOES-16 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
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. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of GOES-R was copied or moved into Draft:GOES-R with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Backwards copy?
[edit]De728631 has placed a {{Backwardscopy}} tag here, relating to http://www.goes-r.gov/spacesegment/ups.html. I'm having difficulty seeing how that could be the case. The first archived version of that page that I've been able to find is this one, dated 11 August 2011. Our article was created on 24 May 2012. A DupDet report shows substantial overlap between the current state of our page and the 2011 archive of theirs. What am I missing? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good catch. I was looking for the exact arrangement of text at the GOES-R page but the dup report reveals that there is identical text. And that 2011 version at GOES-R contains also the paragraph about SARSAT which has so far been attributed to NOAA. I am working on attributing the various public domain sources at the Wikipedia article page, so that was a valuable discovery. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Anyhow, I did find a backwardscopy for the Ground Segment. Compare Wikipedia 2012-07-25 to GOES-R 2012-06-12 and 2012-09-13. You will see that the latter includes the phrasing from our Wikipedia article that was not yet present in the June version of GOES-R's website. De728631 (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for dealing with the attributions, De728631! I just have no idea why we "welcome" this kind of content in this project, it seems entirely inappropriate (see below). I'm obviously firing on only three cylinders today because I couldn't see the backwards copying you mention - all I was able to see was the replacement of "GOES-R" with "NOAA" in the first sentence. Anyway, since both pages were written by the same person it is probably pretty much academic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Tone, style, etc.
[edit]This article reads as if were copied verbatim from the official web pages of the project. That's hardly surprising, because that is exactly where it was copied from. To become a Wikpedia article it needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral and encyclopaedic tone and style, based on verifiable independent sources. At present it seems pretty much to fall under speedy deletion criterion G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
ABI
[edit]"ABI was developed from a similar instrument operated by Japan onboard Himawari 8."
This is actually backwards. The Advanced Himawari Imager (AHI) was developed based on ABI, they just happened to launch first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.17.179.84 (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
fixed. Pgramsey (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Officially renamed GOES-16 by NESDIS on 11/30/16
[edit]Per the official NESDIS GOES-R blog[1] "Yesterday, November 29, 2016, NOAA's GOES-R satellite executed its final liquid apogee engine burn without anomaly. This has placed the satellite approximately 22,000 miles away with an inclination of 0.0 degrees, meaning it has reached geostationary orbit. GOES-R is now GOES-16!" This warrants a change to the page name. Since there are references to GOES-R when talking about both the satellite and the program/series, some references to GOES-R will likely remain after the page move and preliminary page edits. I'm sure there is other updated information since the last few updates. It would be much appreciated for any of the primary contributors to this page to check behind my work. Thanks in advance. AJC3fromS2K (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
References
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GOES-16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205071513/http://www.goes-r.gov/users/proving-ground.html to http://www.goes-r.gov/users/proving-ground.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:GOES-16/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Intro
Background
Spacecraft design
Instruments
Launch and mission profile Unique Payload Services and data processing
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
Any way we can source to less primary sources, such as the Boeing and ULA citations? | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Citations 22 and 25 are to the same place but have different information.
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
32% copyvio via Earwig, just common words, no issues What information is taken from the sources in the attribution section? | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
Should the 'GOES-R Proving Ground' be in this article, or a separate article on the GOES-R series of satellites?
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
Some good, real images of the satellite located here. Recommend inclusion in the article. Here is a great image of EXIS. Recommend you do a deeper dive for media on this topic. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
- Images resourced and credits changed where needed. No higher resolution version of NOAA WCDAS2.png exists, and I have gone ahead and endorsed a transfer of that image to Commons. In the attribution section, part of the descriptions of Level 1a, 1b, and 2 data found in [note 3] are taken from Data Processing Levels. The description of GOES-16's functions, namely "...cloud formation, atmospheric motion, convection, land surface temperature, ocean dynamics, flow of water, fire, smoke, volcanic ash plumes, aerosols and air quality, and vegetative health" are taken from Instruments: Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI). --TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 21:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Made changes related to comments made on July 22. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @TheAustinMan and Kees08:. How are we going with the review? It has been open for over three months now. AIRcorn (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Right, back at it. Kees08 (Talk) 23:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just made additional edits related to additional comments made since my last edits on the article. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 19:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TheAustinMan: I think that's all the comments, besides any follow ups I have. I will go through and work on crossing off what you have already completed so the remaining items are more clear. Kees08 (Talk) 05:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just made additional edits related to additional comments made since my last edits on the article. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 19:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I will pass this now. Sorry for the long time reviewing. I would recommend using some of the images in the link I posted above, there are higher quality images than the ones in this article. Kees08 (Talk) 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- GA-Class Astronomy articles
- Low-importance Astronomy articles
- GA-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
- GA-Class Solar System articles
- Low-importance Solar System articles
- Solar System task force
- GA-Class spaceflight articles
- Low-importance spaceflight articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles
- GA-Class Weather articles
- High-importance Weather articles
- GA-Class Meteorological instrument and data articles
- High-importance Meteorological instrument and data articles
- WikiProject Weather articles
- GA-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/24 July 2012
- Accepted AfC submissions
- Articles edited by connected contributors