Talk:Planetary Missions Program Office

Notes for GA reviewer

I'd like to state my preference for any potential GA reviewer for this article to use {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, or any colour or formatting templates extensively when jotting down their points in the review. This way, my replies to those points, and replies to my replies, can be clearly distinguished between the main point and other main points of the review. I would also like to request that each point be numbered from start to finish in order, with the numbering scheme continuing contiguously through all the sections of the review. This way, I can cite in my edit summaries, in the revision history of the article, which edits pertain to which points of the review. Thanks for your understanding! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 04:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Planetary Missions Program Office/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 04:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

1.1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

1.1.1 Lead

1.1.1.1/2 Recommend adding an infobox, possibly Infobox Government agency

? Clarify – As an editor who is weary of the overuse of infoboxes, may I ask what kind of value would be added to the article if an infobox is included, that an adequately detailed lead paragraph doesn't provide? As far as I'm aware, there's only enough information in this article to fill the "Formed", "Jurisdiction", "Headquarters" and "Website" parameters in {{Infobox government agency}}, which is very little information that already is easily as accessible to a reader currently in prose as an infobox can provide. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

My rationale is that it's on most other Wikipedia pages, but I admit that I don't have a better reason than for the the purpose of standardization with other pages. I will still feel good about approving this article (assuming no other issues in the remainder of the review) without one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.1.1 "The office, established in 2014, presides over the duties of the predecessor Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office and manages the Discovery and New Frontiers programs of low and medium-cost missions by third-party institutions, and the Solar System Exploration program of high-budget NASA-led missions." -This is a long sentence. I would recommend removing "presides over the duties of the predecessor Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office", and putting that it has taken over the duties from its predecessor later in the article, as you have in the "History" section.

 Partly done – The article covers the DNFPO as well, and since "Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office" redirects here, I think it's important to let readers who've been redirected know their place. I've trimmed it slightly at your request, though, and the beginning of the sentence now reads "Succeeding the Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office, it was established in 2014 to manage the..." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, I think this change flows better. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.1.2 "and has so far launched fourteen primary missions together" -Should be 'have' vs. 'has,' as you are referring to multiple programs; also recommend removing "so far."

 Done – Grammatical fixes made as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.1.3 "with one launched and four planned under the administration of the Planetary Missions Program Office" - I recommend adding a transition word, for this section, such as "along with" at the beginning of this, and adding that this is referring to mission, such as "with one mission launched." I also suggest removing the planned missions from the lead section, and keeping them later in the article.

 Done – Changes to the sentence implemented as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.2 History

1.1.2.1 "The program office served as a replacement for the predecessor Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office, which was established in 2004 and headquartered at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.[2] The new office subsequently replaced the old office as tenants of the headquarters at Marshall." -Both of these sentences address how the new office serves as a replacement for the old, both adminstratively and physically. This section would be more concise if these setences were combined.

 Done – Sentences combined as requested. The merger resulted in the following: "The program office served as a replacement for the predecessor Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office established in 2004, occupying their former headquarters at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama" – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.2.1.1 Recommend removing a few words from this. My version would read: "The program office is a replacement for the Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office, and occupies their former headquarters at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama." Saying that it replaces a predecessor is redundant. I removed "served" as that makes it seem as if the program is not operating anymore.

 Done – The new recommended phrasing has been implemented, though information about when the DNFPO was established has been kept, since it doesn't seem necessary to remove essential information such as that about the office. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.2.2 "The Planetary Missions Program Office took over control of the Discovery and New Frontiers program" Recommend removing 'over'

 Done – Removed as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.2.3 "By August 2017, the program had been officially named the "Solar System Exploration Program"," recommend making this more concise. My take on it would be "In 2017, the program was named the "Solar System Exploration Program,""

 Done – Rephrased as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3 Programs

1.1.3.0 My overall feedback for this section is that it is very wordy, and reads more like a narrative than an encyclopedic article. I will highlight specific changes that I recommend, but all 3 sub-sections should be more concise. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.1 Discovery

1.1.3.1.1 "The Discovery program was established in late 1990 as NASA's second attempt at creating a program of low-cost, limited-scope solar system exploration missions, after the Planetary Observer program started to fall victim to budget problems." -This should be reduced to just include the date when the program was created and its mission. The sentence comes across as critical of the Planetary Observer program.

 Partly done – It's important for readers to know about the Discovery program's beginnings in the context of the failure of the Planetary observer program. The sentence has been reworded to be as neutral as possible, as follows, "The Discovery program was established in late 1990 as a program of low-cost, limited-scope solar system exploration missions, succeeding the objectives of the Planetary Observer program." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.1.2 " In the late 1980s, NASA was keen to advance its space exploration programs by gearing towards expensive, more ambitious missions, including the proclamation of the Space Exploration Initiative by the George H. W. Bush administration that laid out a plan to construct Space Station Freedom and establish a human exploration program to the Moon and Mars." -This sentence personifies NASA, and treats it like a monolithic organization. Additionally, President Bush's space initiatives focus mostly on human exploration, which is not related to the mission of the Discovery program. I would recommend removing this sentence.

 Partly done – Again, context is important here; the idea is to give readers a knowledge and understanding of the ambitious climate at NASA and its subsequent regression. It lets readers understand why the Planetary Observer and Discovery programs were established in the first place. One should also note that the SEI involved MESUR, so it is most certainly involved with the Discovery program in the form of Mars Pathfinder.

The sentence has been reworded to address concerns about the "personification" of NASA, however, and more encyclopedic wording has been employed to make it read less like "a narrative". The sentence now reads, "In the late 1980s, leaders at NASA opted towards expensive, more ambitious missions to advance their objectives. This included the Space Exploration Initiative by the George H. W. Bush administration, which laid out a plan to construct Space Station Freedom and establish a human exploration program to the Moon and Mars." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.1.3 "By the time Daniel S. Goldin...and funded in the 1993 United States federal budget." These few sentences read like a narrative instead of an encyclopedia article. I recommend reducing this to a single sentence that just focuses on the main goal of the mission, and leaves out the Tom Krimigis section, as well as the approval by the budget. A quick revision on my part would be "In 1992, the NASA Solar System Exploration Division (SSED) proposed the Discovery program as a series of small and relatively inexpensive planetary missions, which was approved by NASA Administrator David S. Goldin and Congress."

 Partly done – This is an incredible amount of information shredding that I simply cannot accept in full. Facts that I have shred, though, is non-essential information on the SMPG, exact legislation for Discovery program funding, and Goldin's "faster, better, cheaper" mantra. Essential facts that have been kept, though, are the climate, the SSED's involvement, the Explorer program basis and Krimigis's role, and the program's eventual Congressional and Administrative support. Language has been heavily modified to address "narrative" concerns, with more neutral and encyclopedic terminology and sentence structures. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I like how you changed this, and think it reads well. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.1.4 The second paragraph in 'Discovery' should be revised to have more focus on the missions themselves, instead of their development and costs. My quickly written suggestion for the NEAR Shoemaker section would be: "On February 17, 1996, the Discovery program launched its first probe, NEAR Shoemaker. Originally designated as the NEAR spacecraft, the probe was renamed after the death of the planetary scientist Eugene Shoemaker. NEAR Shoemaker performed a flyby of the asteroid 253 Mathilde, and began orbiting 433 Eros on February 14, 2000. After orbiting 433 Eros until February 12, 2001, the probe landed on the asteroid and continued broadcast until February 28, 2001." I would recommend a similar description when writing about Pathfinder/Soujourner.

Rethinking my position on this. I'm not sure how to rectify having long descriptions on the first two missions, but then having the only mention of remaining missions in a list. I think this paragraph could be combined with the following paragraph to briefly introduce Shoemaker and Pathfinder, and then getting into the discussion of AO/MO/SALMON.

 Partly done – Both NEAR Shoemaker and Mars Pathfinder, and their origins, are integral to the foundation of the program, so I think it's appropriate that they're featured. Their redesignations into the program are comparable to the following paragraph's explanation of how future missions were accepted into the program. Although, I have accepted your call to rewrite the section in part. A few details that I feel non-essential to describing the missions' overall success have been shredded out, such as the origin of NEAR Shoemaker's name and mission numbering irregularities. Remaining information have been crunched down to be as short as possible, with encyclopedic, non-"narrative"-like wording, to keep consistent with changes made so far. I believe I have made a good balance between the missions' backgrounds and successes here. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.1.5 "After NEAR Shoemaker and Mars Pathfinder... launched with assistance from Discovery program resources and funding" Recommend reducing this to one or 2 shorter sentences that highlight that it's a competition, it's called the "Announcement of Opportunities," and the winner is becomes. My quick take would be: "After Near Shoemaker and Mars Pathfinder, the Discovery program began selecting its future missions from proposals in competitions named "Announcements of Opportunity" (AOs)."

 Done – The section highlighted has been completely replaced with the suggested phrasing, with a minor amendment noting third-party involvement. It reads the same except for, "... from proposals from third-party institutions, in competitions ..." A new citation has been included in this change. The content cut from the article, including citations made redundant by this change, will be kept for a possible future expansion of the "Discovery Program" article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.1.6 "selected in January 2017 after a three-year long competition that began in 2014." Recommend removing "that began in 2014," which is redundant by saying it's a three-year competition that ended in 2017.

 Done – Redundant phrase removed as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.1.7 I recommend combining the explanation of MOs and SALMONs. My take on this would be "Discovery program also presides over "Missions of Opportunity" (MOs) to develop instruments for non-NASA missions, such as the ASPERA-3 instrument onboard the ESA's Mars Express and the M3 instrument onboard the ISRO's Chandrayaan-1. The MOs are either selected in competitions alongside the AOs or "Stand Alone Mission of Opportunity Notices" (SALMONs)."

 Done – Explanations simplified and combined as requested, with minor amendments to the second sentence to note that simultaneous selections no longer occur. It reads as follows, "... MOs were originally selected in competitions alongside AOs, though have been selected in "Stand Alone Mission of Opportunity Notices" (SALMONs) since 2009." Just as an F.Y.I., you can word "ESA" and "ISRO" as a noun rather than an acronym, without following an article such as "the". "ESA" is pronounced /ˈiːsə/ and "ISRO" is pronounced /ˈɪsroʊ/. Just a little fun fact I wanted to share. :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.1.8 "NEAR Shoemaker was redesignated to the Discovery program, after the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Applied Physics Laboratory found that the mission was possible to execute on a cheap budget between US$110 million and US$150 million" A few corrections for this section. Change 'redesignated' to 'reassigned,' as redesignated implies that it had it's name changed when it moved to Discovery. Saying "cheap budget" is editorializing the money allocated for the program, and the stated budget should be the final cost, not the estimated range. My take on it would be: "NEAR Shoemaker was reassigned to the Discovery program, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Applied Physics Laboratory executed the mission at a cost of $224 million." Reference link for budget.

 Partly done – I think there's a misunderstanding over what information this passage was trying to convey. Here, we're trying to describe the reason why NEAR Shoemaker was brought into Discovery; because meetings between the JPL and APL concluded that the mission was possible to execute on a significantly smaller budget. The proposed rephrasing shreds that information completely, and just serves to state the mission's operators and its cost and nothing else. I've incorporated suggestions to use "reassigned" instead of "redesignated", and editorialized wording has been removed as requested. However, the information stays, along with a new, short passage describing its final mission cost with the enclosed citation included. The passage has been reworded as follows, "... NEAR Shoemaker was reassigned to the Discovery program, after the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Applied Physics Laboratory found that the mission was possible to execute on a budget smaller than originally planned. Its final mission cost would eventually reach US$224 million." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.2 New Frontiers

1.1.3.2.1 "spiritual successor" -Recommend removing "spiritual"

 Done – Word removed as requested – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.2.2 "an ambitious project which aimed to launch the Europa Orbiter astrobiology mission to Europa, the Pluto Kuiper Express reconnaissance mission to Pluto and the Kuiper belt, and the Solar Orbiter heliophysics mission to heliocentric orbit." Recommend removing "ambitious," and removing the mission descriptions, as the mission names indicate the intended destinations.

 Done – Redundancies removed as requested – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.2.3 "Pluto Kuiper Express was cancelled in 2000 by then-Science Mission Directorate Edward J. Weiler, as part of measures to cut the ballooning costs of the OPSP program, though subsequently announced a public competition for third-party institutions to propose a replacement mission, similar to the Discovery program's AO method of selecting missions." -Recommend changing to a shorter sentence; my take on it is: "To reduce the costs of the OPSP, the Polar Kuiper Express was cancelled in 2000 by then-Science Mission Directorate Edward J. Weiler, who subsequently accepted proposals for a replacement mission."

 Done – Sentence reworded as requested, with a slight amendment to note the competition's similarity to the Discovery Program AOs, written as follows, "... who subsequently accepted proposals for a replacement mission, modelling the competition after the Discovery program's AOs." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.2.4 "Alan Stern and the Applied Physics Laboratory's New Horizons mission" -Recommend changing to "The New Horizon's mission" as the other missions are not introduced by their managing individuals/organizations.

 Done – Mention of Alan Stern and the Applied Physics Laboratory has been cut. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.2.5 "Stern and the New Horizons team" -Recommend changing to "The New Horizons team"

 Done – Reference to Stern has been removed as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.2.6 "New Horizons was launched as the program's first mission on January 20, 2006, and succeeded in its prime mission, performing a reconnaissance of the previously unexplored dwarf planet Pluto and its system of moons in July 2015." Recommend removing some of the words. My take on this would be: "New Horizons was launched as the program's first mission on January 20, 2006, and successfully performed a reconnaissance of Pluto and its moons in July 2015." Pluto is notable enough that it shouldn't require an introduction of what it is.

 Done – Reworded sentence as requested, with a very minor modification to emphasise its historical feat as follows, "successfully performed the first reconnaissance ..." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.2.7 "An extended mission to observe Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) and perform a flyby of Ultima Thule in January 2019 is underway." -Recommend changing this to "An extended mission is underway to observe Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs), including of flyby of Ultima Thule in January 2019." As Ultima Thule is a KBO, it shouldn't be listed like a separate task for New Horizons.

 Done – Restructured sentence as requested, in full. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.2.8 "The first formal AO for the New Frontiers program saw Juno, a specialized mission to investigate the interior of Jupiter led by principal investigator (PI) Scott J. Bolton, chosen over the MoonRise lunar sample return concept to become the second mission of the program in June 2005, launching on August 5, 2011 and arriving at the planet in July 2016." -Recommend breaking this in to multiple sentences, and removing some text. My take on it: "In the first New Frontiers AO, the Juno mission to Jupiter was selected over the MoonRise lunar sample return mission. Juno launched on August 5, 2011, and arrived at Jupiter in July 2016." The more detailed information about what Juno is studying, as well as its project managers, can be found on its page.

 Done – Reworded passage as requested, with a slight modification to keep the detailed mission description, so that it equals the description for MoonRise. It reads as follows, "... Juno, a mission to investigate the interior of Jupiter, was selected ..." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.2.8 "OSIRIS-REx was chosen as the program's third mission in May 2011, favored over MoonRise and SAGE.[44][45] A sample-return mission led by PI Dante Lauretta, aimed at collecting and returning to Earth a sample from the Near-Earth object (NEO) 101955 Bennu, it launched on September 8, 2016,[46][47] and is due to arrive at Bennu in August 2018." -Recommend moving the sample return portion to the first sentence. My take is: "In May 2011, the OSIRIS-REx asteroid sample return mission was selected over MoonRise and SAGE for the program's third mission. OSIRIS-REx launched on September 8, 2016, and will arrive at the Near-Earth object (NEO) 101955 Bennu in August 2018."

 Done – Recommended changes to the phrasing accepted in full. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.2.9 "who subsequently accepted proposals for a replacement mission, modelling the competition after the Discovery program's AOs" Change "modelling the competition" to "and modelled the competition" to keep the tense consistent with the rest of the sentence.

 Done – Passage has been made more consistent with tense as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.3 Solar System Exploration

1.1.3.3.1 "The Solar System Exploration program was established alongside the Planetary Missions Program Office in late 2014, but was not formally named until later in 2015. The goal of the program was highlighted by the Marshall Space Flight Center as "[executing] prioritized planetary science objectives"." -Recommend combining these into a single sentence. My take is "In late 2014, the Solar System Exploration program was established alongside the Planetary Missions Program Office to priotize planetary science."

Also, I'm confused as to the scope of the Solar System Exploration goals vs. the Planetary Missions Program Office. I see that the stated goal is to prioritize planetary science, but how/why is it different than the Discovery/New Frontiers programs? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Sentences merged as requested, though the quotation marks phrasing has been preserved to emphasise that it is the controversially vague wording of Marshall, and not a fellow editor. To answer your question, well, I honestly don't have an answer. I made some in-depth research into the Solar System Exploration Program, and there is scarce information to go on. The "execute" phrase is literally the only official description of the program I could find; the lack of information on scope or objectives is by no means the fault of editors because of such. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.3.2 "DART, an asteroid deflection test targeting 65803 Didymos developed in coordination with the Planetary Defense Coordination Office and Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory, is planned to be launched as the first mission of the program in 2020 or 2021." -Recommend cutting down the word count in this. My take is: "The first planned mission of the program is DART, and asteroid deflection test scheduled to launch in 2020 or 2021."

 Done – Sentence rephrased as requested, though reference to DART's target has been kept. The sentence has been rephrased as follows, "... an asteroid deflection test targeting 65803 Didymos scheduled to launch in 2020 or 2021." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.3.3 "The mission was originally a component of a collaborative project with the European Space Agency (ESA) known as AIDA, where ESA would send an orbiter named AIM to study Didymos from orbit and observe the impact of DART. However, the ESA Council at ministerial level, during their 2016 summit in Lucerne, Switzerland, made the decision to cancel the AIM mission in favour of funding for the ExoMars 2020 rover, after the budget for both missions ballooned from their intended costs. Despite the absence of ESA's role in the mission, NASA committed to their original plan, opting to continue solely with DART" -Recommend reducing word count and making this less narrative-sounding. My take: "The mission was originally a collaboration with ESA, but the ESA cancelled their component in favor of the ExoMars 2020 rover."

 Partly done – Since this article is the only place on Wikipedia for information on the program, and "Solar System Exploration Program" redirects to this particular section, I think it'll be wise to try to preserve some level of advanced detail. Kept are the facts that DART is a mission component turned independent, the administrative factors in the cancellation of AIDA, and a summary of AIM. Cut from the passage are comparatively unneeded details on the ministerial summit itself. Sentences have been reworded and shortened, keeping consistent with previous changes made during this review. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.3.4 "Two astrobiology missions to Europa also occupy launch spots in the Solar System Exploration program" -The 'occupy launch spots' phrase reads awkwardly; recommend changing to "Two Europa astrobiology missions are scheduled in the Solar System Exploration program."

 Done – Exactly rephrased as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.3.5 "The Europa Clipper, a NASA-led mission with a focus on studying Europa from the orbit of Jupiter, is planned to launch as the inaugural cargo flight of the Space Launch System in the early 2020s." -Recommend making this more concise and reducing some of the info on studying Europa. My take is "The NASA-led Europa Clipper is scheduled to launch in the early 2020s on the inaugural cargo flight of the Space Launch System.

 Done – Rephrased as requested, with the omission of "NASA-led", in order to stay consistent with changes requested in the next point of this review. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.3.3.6 "NASA contributions to the ESA-led JUICE mission that will study Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto also fall under the funding umbrella of the Solar System Exploration program, including NASA's ultraviolet spectrograph built for the spacecraft, and American personnel working on the mission's Radar for Icy Moons Exploration (RIME) and Particle Environment Package (PEP) instruments." -Recommend shortening this and not repeatedly stating US involvement. My take is "The ESA-led JUICE mission will study Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto, and will utilize a NASA-built spectrograph, Radar for Icy Moons Exploration (RIME), and Particle Environment Package (PEP) instruments."

 Done – The passage has been rephrased and shortened, with some reasonable modifications. "ESA-led" as been traded for simply "ESA" for consistency, reference to Solar System Exploration program funding has been added, and the instrumentshave been rearranged in alphabetical order. The sentence was rewritten as follows, "The ESA JUICE mission to study Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto will utilize the NASA-built, Solar System Exploration Program-funded Particle Environment Package (PEP), Radar for Icy Moons Exploration (RIME), and spectrograph instruments." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.1.4 Timeline

1.1.4.1 Timeline looks really good. Nice work!

Thanks! Writing it up was quite unpleasant, so I appreciate the recognition! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1.2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

1.2.1 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

1.2.1.1 No concerns. I still advocate for an infobox, but am fine without one.

1.2.2 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout

1.2.2.1 No concern.

1.2.3 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

1.2.3.1 The use of 'grandathered' is a euphemism. (sentence 1, paragraph 2 under "Discovery" subsection.

 Done – the euphemism was replaced with the more technical term "redesignated". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

1.2.3.2 Recommend changing "christened" to "named" or "designated" at the end of the History section, as "christened" could be considered a euphemism.

 Done – Phrase has been reworded to the more encyclopedic phrase, "officially named". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

1.2.4 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists

1.2.4.1 See below about adding references to the mission lists.

 Done – Similarly, my response can be read underneath point 2.2.1 down below. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

2.1. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

2.1.1 Extensive reference list. Very well done. No concerns.

2.2. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

2.2.1 Add references to the mission lists.

 Done – All three mission lists in the article now have inline citations. Using thirteen new citations and six existing citations, each mission in each list is accompanied by a citation and the end of their descriptions, citing their involvement with each respective program, and additional information specified in the description. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

2.3. It contains no original research:

2.3.1 No concerns.

2.4. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

Haven't forgotten this. Earwig is currently down, and I will return to this section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

2.4.1 No concerns. Earwig returned a very low similarity rating.

2.5. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

2.5.1 Addresses the scope of the article. No concerns.

2.6. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

2.6.1 No concern. All of my issues with going into unecessary details were addressed in the writing critique.

3. Is it neutral?

3.1. It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

2.5.1 No concerns; you addressed any neutrality concerns in the writing critique.

4. Is it stable?

4.1. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

4.1.1 No concern. You are the main author by a very wide margin, and there haven't been any edit wars.

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

5.1. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

5.1.1 No concern

5.2. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

5.1.1 No concern

6. Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Nice work, @PhilipTerryGraham:. Other than the listed fixes, and me checking for copyright issues, I think you have done a good job with this article. As I am still new to GA reviews, I will ping @Kees08: to provide any additional feedback. I will put the review on hold once I complete the Earwig search. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I had one additional edit suggestion, but you have done a good job of making edits throughout the process. I am putting your article on hold for the next week for any outside feedback, but I think this article is well-deserving of GA status. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Going through your major text edits, I found a few corrections to be made. I'll be putting the recommended changes in red text under the appropriate section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments complete. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Have you pinged anyone in particular? I feel like this is an awfully long time to wait for a result on a review that is, in all practical senses, complete... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Just Kees08, but I was planning on leaving it on hold for 7 days (starting 27 March, when I first approved the article) to let any other reviewers/editors weigh in. Assuming no negative feedback from other editors, I will pass it on April 3, but I would like to leave the door open for input from other reviewers, as this is only my second GA review. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Kees08 comments

• Images
  • I cannot find any indication that NASA owns the copyright for this (or released it into the PD), since the link is broken. I tried to find any working NASA link that would tell me and did not see any. I would replace it with another image or find the copyright information [for this].
  • File:Encounter 01 lg.jpg, here the copyright is JPL and Southwest Research Institute. Does SWRI release their images into the PD as well?

I think that is all I have. There are some pretty long sentences with low variety, and there are quite a few NASA sources for an article on a NASA program. A couple of the other images also have dead links, but they seemed to be from NASA. May want to fix those source links as well. I think just the two bullet points I made need addressed for the GAN, and the res are nice-to-haves.

To review your review specifically:

• I discovered there is some weird war with infoboxes (I mean no offense to either side involved). In reviews, I do not comment on their existence either way; I will make comments if they exist and need improved. If I am editing articles, I add them if it seems like a good addition, but in reviewing I do not suggest adding them.
• The back and forth on the prose was well-executed.
• When reviewing images, I usually check to make sure links to the source still work. If they do not, I try to find one myself. While you cannot fail a GA for dead links, you certainly can request that proof of copyright be provided for images (a I did above). Sometimes the NASA websites use material from other sources, and when they do they sometimes provides attribution as they should.

Overall, good article, good review, just a couple of things and it can be a GA in my opinion. Kees08 (Talk) 05:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. @PhilipTerryGraham:, any idea on the copyright status of these 2 photos? I have not been able to find anything thing about the JHUAPL public domain release. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy and Kees08: Sorry for taking a while to respond! Going back into the site history through the Wayback Machine, I was able to find the Mars Pathfinder artwork being hosted on a Jet Propulsion laboratory server (www2.jpl.nasa.gov) as the file's description claimed. Here is that page, archived from August 2000. Your concern about the lack of copyright still stands, however, as I too have failed to find any copyright information on this artwork. The two other sources I could find on this image, both from Goddard [1] [2], did not specify any credit to the image, let alone NASA.

As for the New Horizons artwork, I have discovered that the artwork is actually not credited to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at all. From the source alone as specified by the image page, it is credited instead to the Applied Physics Laboratory and the Southwest Research Institute. This is true through all usages of the artwork, including these articles from NASA that credit the image to the JHUAPL and SwRI [1] [2]. I am unsure of the copyright of both the APL and SwRI's images, but it's safe to assume that they retain the rights. I've swapped the images to those with explicit credit and copyright licensees appropriate to use on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. It's up to you whether or not you want to peruse the deletion of the previous images. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I ran into the same issue over at the John Glenn article, a bit of a bummer. I looked yesterday and APL has PD licensing, but it looks like SWRI does not allow anything like that (at least as a blanket rule). Article should be good to go, and I suppose I should follow up and nominate those files for deletion. Kees08 (Talk) 06:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy and Kees08: No worries! Are there any last, final, definitive things I need to do on my part to ensure this article gets the GA mark? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Not from me, but I will leave it to Balon Greyjoy to do the administrative work. Kees08 (Talk) 06:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have completed the assessment, and the article has passed. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

SIMPLEx

I have been working on a draft article about the SIMPLEx program. [1] It hasn't been approved to become an article because it doesn't have enough sources, and I think it will do better as a section of an article. I want to add parts of my draft page to this page. Should I add it? Which information from my draft should I keep? Nrl103 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Planetary Missions Program Office isn't involved in SIMPLEx. At least, their web page doesn't claim any SIMPLEx mission as one they manage, and the SIMPLEx acquisition page says it's under the Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) at NASA Langley Research Center. So I don't think the article on the Planetary Missions Program Office is the right place for information on SIMPLEx. Fcrary (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I think SOMA is just the office that selects NASA missions. According to an article on the NASA website [2] about the Janus mission, which is a part of SIMPLEx, Janus is managed by the Planetary Missions Program Office. What makes it more confusing is that it then says that Janus is a part of the Solar System Exploration program. There isn't very much information about SIMPLEx on the internet, and some of it is confusing. I'm not sure whether information on SIMPLEx should go here or somewhere else, but I think that it needs to be somewhere on Wikipedia. Nrl103 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree SIMPLEx should be covered in some way, but it's organizationally a mess. So it's not surprise the available information is confusing. Q-PACE, for example, was an [[Educational Launch of Nanosatellites|ELaNa] project, which are managed by Launch Services Program at Kennedy. But it was funded through SIMPLEx. And, although I don't have published references, future solicitations for SIMPLEx missions are on hold until NASA figures out what to do with it. Several SIMPLEx missions have had real problems staying within the $55 million cost cap. So NASA headquarters is reevaluating how to handle small spacecraft planetary missions. Until they figure that out, which program office is responsible is likely to be inconsistent, probably confusing and definitely hard to find good references for in a wikipedia article. I'm not sure what we can do about that; it's like articles concerning current events but with the events talking years to resolve themselves. Fcrary (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think NASA will make a decision when we start getting science results from a SIMPLEx mission. That could happen in just a few months after LunaH-Map launches. I'm now thinking that maybe I can add a section on SIMPLEx to the wikipedia page 'List of uncrewed NASA missions'. Do you know of any other pages that would work? Nrl103 (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The small satellite article might also be a place for information on SIMPLEx. Fcrary (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)