Talk:Pale Blue Dot/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 23:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the previous GANs. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the talk page friction. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

~~The category 'Spaceflight' is not exactly what this article is about.~~

Removed 'Spaceflight' category. Suraj T 05:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The category 'Astronomy image articles' assumes the category 'Photographs'. Delete 'Photographs'.~~

Removed 'Photographs' category. Suraj T 05:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are too many images crowding each other. Three are images of the Pale Blue Dot. I think one of these should be dropped; either the cropped one or the 90 degree rotation one with a blue circle.~~

Removed the cropped img. Suraj T 05:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image with the caption starting "A NASA diagram showing the position of Earth with respect to the Sun..." does not show the thing described by the caption. Also, the caption seems to be missing a word. Anyway, this image is not about the Pale Blue Dot and should be removed.

The image actually represents the positions of the planets relative to each other on February 14, 1990, when the pale blue dot was taken. Please see this and this. Suraj T 05:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image, File:Voyager Portrait Family diagram.jpg, is about the Family Portrait. It is not about the Pale Blue Dot. It shows the planets, but it has the extraneous frames of the Family Portrait. The words "Jupiter", "Mars", "Earth" and "Mercury" are all way out in Saturn's orbit. The image is not tailored for this article; it is not very helpful. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the photograph. Suraj T 03:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good going. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrases "which might disrupt the further observation of Uranus and Neptune" and "By the end of 1989, Voyager 1's Neptune mission was complete" are not supported by the cited article in Parade magazine nor by the cited section of Sagan's book Pale blue dot: a vision of the human future in space. Same with the sentence "Hence it was eventually decided that it would be better to delay the photograph until all the Voyager 1 observations of Uranus and Neptune had been completed." The phrases and sentences conflate the active mission of Voyager 2 with the inactivity of V1. These conflations should be removed.

"which might disrupt the further observation of Uranus and Neptune" is sourced from the statement "Did we want to aim the camera so close to the Sun as to risk burning out the spacecraft's vidicon system? Wouldn't it be better to delay until all the scientific images from Uranus and Neptune, if the spacecraft lasted that long, were taken?" in pg 5 of Carl Sagan's book.

"Voyager 1's Neptune mission was complete" removed.

"Hence it was eventually decided that it would be better to delay the photograph until all the Voyager 1 observations of Uranus and Neptune had been completed." is understood from the sentence "Wouldn't it be better to delay until all the scientific images from Uranus and Neptune, if the spacecraft lasted that long, were taken? And so we waited.."

An excerpt for the above statement. Suraj T 06:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Sagan says "Wouldn't it be better..." he is using imprecise wording for a non-technical audience. He blends the V1 and V2 projects in that sentence. He smooths over the conflict between his request and NASA's inability to answer it because of layoffs. In his ideal version of the photo, Voyager 1 would have taken it years earlier, but NASA could not or would not. Sagan, for whatever reason, decides not to describe this friction for the popular audience of Parade. Sagan was waiting for V2 activities to conclude, not V1 activities.

This page says Voyager 1's camera was dormant since Saturn. Voyager 1 did not have a Neptune or Uranus mission. The only concern was that, after turning the camera around for the PBD photo, the camera should first photograph things other than the Sun, to minimize the possibility of damaging the camera's light-sensitive system. There were no V1 activities after 1980—it was just hurtling away from us at 40,000 miles an hour but quiescent, saving power. Sagan's Parade article has unclear wording, and cannot be interpreted in a novel manner counter to what is known about Voyager 1. The 'delay' in taking the photo of the Sun was simply a sequencing delay, not a delay of many years. The only 'delay' was that V1 was to begin with taking images of other planets on February 14, 1990, and wind up with a photo of the Sun at the end of the sequence. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. Suraj T 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to continue the review a bit later. Feel free to address the above points. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "taking a picture with a small angle between the Sun and the Earth" is unnecessarily technical. The real concern was taking a picture of the Earth with the very bright Sun in the same shot.

Done. Suraj T 06:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~This phrase should be edited: "Finally, the then NASA Administrator Richard Truly" => "Finally, then-NASA Administrator Richard Truly".~~

Done. Suraj T 06:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The image accompanying this article, named Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan, is a narrow angle photograph." This sentence is self-referential. We do not need to say that the image accompanies the article. Also, there are multiple images in the article.

Done. Suraj T 06:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Pale Blue Dot was originally a portion of a wide-angle image containing the sun and the region of space where the Earth and Venus were at that time." This sentence is false. The Pale Blue Dot did not show up at all in the wide-angle image.

But isn't the statement sourced here? Suraj T 07:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see that source supporting the statement. The narrow-angle photo is the source of the Pale Blue Dot, described as a blend of three narrow-angle images taken with three filters: violet, green and blue. The narrow-angle image is the original. The wide-angle image including the Sun was taken last to prevent camera damage. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Suraj T 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; looks good. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Milliseconds are not hyphenated, not milli-seconds.~~

Done. Suraj T 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The voyager imaging science subsystem (ISS) ..." The name Voyager should be capitalized, and whether the ISS is specific to Voyager I or shared between V1 and V2, this should be stated.~~

Done. Suraj T 07:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please check your new edit. I think the number '2' was mistakenly inserted.~~ Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected my edit. Suraj T 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Slewed: the word should be explained for non-technical readers, explained as a slight panning or tracking movement to compensate for the (very brief) time exposure.~~

Done. Suraj T 07:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sagan's poetic final quote should not be framed in cquote style, but set in standard quote style, or blockquote. Cquote is for short quotes, and this is not one.~~

Done. Suraj T 07:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I will put the review on hold to allow the above points to be addressed. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The image caption which concludes parenthetically "speech at Cornell University, October 13th 1994, shown here inside a blue circle" is easily mistaken as describing the speech inside a blue circle.~~ Also, Wikipedia manual of style (WP:DATESNO) disallows the 'th' in '13th' for dates.

Done. Suraj T 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected your "October 13th" to "October 13". Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image caption "The original wide-angle image containing the sun and the region of space where the Earth and Venus..." is misleading. The Sun image was taken last, to prevent camera damage. It is not an 'original' image. The narrow-angle images were taken first. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Suraj T 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! The article is listed GA. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]