Talk:China's Tiangong-1 space station crashes into Pacific

Review of revision 4394405 [Passed]

Revision 4394405 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Some links needed changing. Note the US military command, which verified the crash, was renamed in December 2017, and is linked to the ENWP article with the old name. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4394405 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Some links needed changing. Note the US military command, which verified the crash, was renamed in December 2017, and is linked to the ENWP article with the old name. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Last paragraph

I dislike the "If the United States decides to cease support for the International Space Station, China may have the only resource that keeps humans in orbit." sentence, it reads like a speculation. It raises the question, why would they cease support, and until when is it guaranteed to continue to exist? And why is the support provided only by US and not by multiple countries? --Gryllida (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You’re right, so I’ve reworded it and removed the most speculative part. The ISS depends on multiple countries but a US withdrawal would make it difficult for other countries to continue operating it. Green Giant (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks :-) Re 2, this may require attribution and specification of time (when did they start thinking of ceasing the support and when would the support end in that case), if information is present only in a single source. Gryllida (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd perhaps suggest "United States was contemplating withdrawing support for the International Space Station by 2024, according to Jiao Weixin, a space science professor at Peking University" (or 'according to Global Times'). Gryllida (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s not Wexin; both sources mention the possible cessation of support with the Guardian giving 2024 and CNN pointing to an earlier article which mentions 2024. The start of the funding cut possibility was with the start of the Trump presidency but this isn’t mentioned in either source. Not sure how to phrase it. I’m happy to leave it out. Green Giant (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we should keep the year. The upshot is that it would happen at around the same time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd perhaps suggest "United States was contemplating withdrawing support for the International Space Station by 2024". --Gryllida (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The current version is ok, but I'd replace 'is debating' with 'was considering' ('debating' raises the question of who is debating; we probably do not want to include that without specifying the answer). --Gryllida (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"whereas the United States planned to retire the International Space Station by 2024"? Gryllida (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Factually that's not the same thing as withdrawing funding. "Retiring" it would be more like taking it down from orbit. Presumably, if some other entity took over funding, ISS would continue. I think "withdrawing support" is more like it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Commas

I wrote this in American English, so the comma goes inside the quotation mark. The comma-outside usage is correct in British English. Hang on while I get some sources.

Here's a handy chart from the style guide of the American Psychological Association.

Here's Oxford Dictionaries on the matter.

Here's Scientific Style and Format (quoting OUP) if you want something more detailed and academic. I hope this puts your mind at ease that the name of the spacecraft has been portrayed properly. EDIT: I remember the Associated Press style guide does the same, but I don't remember their exact words right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Harrrumph! American English is an oxymoron methinks. It's not worth quibbling over a comma. 😉 Green Giant (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, when it was an article about British scientists checking surfers' butts for E. coli, I was untucked commas and centre of the harbour all the way. The language in its glorious variety. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Timezones

I noticed that the article uses UTC and GMT. Sure they are the same thing, but is there some rule of using one or the other? Also I loved the part about NASA getting fined. My guess is the payment is delinquent, it got shuffled into those missing moon rock box. AZOperator (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

They're the same thing? I thought they were different. Huh. Well then we have an issue because 0115 and 12:15 don't look like the same time.

Actually, a radio station paid the fine for NASA in 2009. It's in the Wikipedia article through the link. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Google tells me that 8:15 a.m. Beijing time is 12:15 a.m. UTC, but the quote says it was 1:15 a.m., so let's go with that. Alternately, since the quote gives the standard time in the second paragraph, do we need to adhere to our usual custom of putting it in the first? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear.

Reference time is UTC. There is no a.m. or p.m. in UTC, and it does not use a colon. 8:15am in Beijing is 0015 UTC, and 8:15pm on the US East coast.

Unfortunately, this article is in error, and since it's more than 24 hours after publication we're going to have to issue a {{correction}}. The article states that the focal event took place on Sunday, but in fact it did not. It took place on Monday, local time. (Also, btw, Monday UTC.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... that's quite a confusing point. I'm pretty sure one of them said Sunday when I reviewed it. If you look at the Guardian article, in the middle it quotes the US JFCC as saying re-entry was "~5:16 p.m. (PST) April 1". Green Giant (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Monday 8:15am in Beijing, Monday 0015 UTC, Sunday 8:15pm on the US east coast ("ET", as CNN puts it), and Sunday 5:15pm on the US west coast (PST = Pacific Saving Time). The two sources both say Monday morning, afaics, but CNN mentions Sunday when giving the "ET" equivalent. --Pi zero (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so if we caught the timezone problem, we would might have caught the correction. Interesting. Well with every mistake comes a lesson. Now did the radio station find the moon rocks? ;) AZOperator (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero, AZOperator, Green Giant: I figured out what was bothering me about this. I think the correction should say Monday where. The whole cause of the confusion is that it's already Monday in Beijing when it's still Sunday in London. The reader is as likely to get that mixed up as we are. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe they did, AZOperator. I think the "debris" was probably more Skylab parts and perhaps a few pairs of personalized Buzz Aldrin underpants. They have yet to resurface. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)