Talk:India's flag lands on Moon
Copyright? edit
I think the copied tagged must be remove, because it seems to copied from our own previous articles, which is definately property of wikinews, as created by wikinewsers, like me and you. Isn't it so? Azamishaque (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry: it certainly is copied from our/your own previous articles, and it is all part of the commons. When I mentioned copy edit in the tag, I only meant to tidy it up and make it flow properly in the new story. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Collaboration notes edit
Please set your spell checker to Indian English or British English. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to know when the probe will be released. Times of India says 8pm IST (just over 1 hour from now) but The Indian Express[1] says 10pm (3 hours). The probe will fall for 20 minutes until impact, and though I think it will take a few more minutes for the orbiter to transmit a confirmation back, once the probe is ejected, the only way is down!
Either way, I have to go off line now, and probably won't be able to do any work on the article by that time. Good luck!
Review edit
If we have 2 or 3 wikinewsies on line when the impact is announced, this may be a race with other news outlets (just for fun.) If you haven't added to the article, you could plan to review it. It would be give us a head start if you could proof read it a few minutes early, so that you can respond quickly with a {{peer review}} when we add the {{review}} tag,
Sadly, I cannot predict if I will be on line at the relevant time to add the review tag or make last minute changes.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nitpicking here, but ESA is not a country. The opening paragraph says fourth country. --SVTCobra 20:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- True. We used that phrasing in an earlier article (it is inspired by some of the sources) and I can't think of a better way of putting it. There, must, however, be a better way. --InfantGorilla (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This ranking of first landings has some minor difficulties. Judging by the research Wikipedians have done, these claims of 4th group/country seem to depend on a distinction between a hard landing (intact versus a crash landing) and whether the vehicle carried a flag.
- 1959 Soviet Union - hard landing (subsequent soft landings and flags)
- 1964 USA - crash landing (subsequent soft landings and flags)
- 1990 Japan - Hagoromo - outcome unknown
- 1993 Japan - Hiten - deliberate crash landing - how badly damaged? was there a flag?
- 2006 ESA - SMART 1 - deliberate crash landing - how badly damaged? was there a flag, or 17 flags?
- 2008 India - MIP - deliberate hard landing - flag
It is unclear to me so far how badly damaged India's MIP was by the landing. The term 'crash landing' was often used (perhaps conservatively) by ISRO sources, even though the intent was that the MIP would continue to transmit data to the orbiter for a few hours after landing. The claim of 4th flag seems to originate from India, or the ISRO itself.
Attracting a dispute to the article would take away from the importance of the event, which really does not depend on whether India is 3rd 4th or 5th flag. Should we delete it altogether, at least until there is a ranking that is verifiable and somewhat independent of India?
Being the fifth country (sixth space agency) to orbit the moon is uncontroversial.
Actual Review edit
 |
Revision 726465 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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 726465 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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. |
"naming other talk sections 'Review
Thanks for pointing out your grumble (and for the positive review!) I will try to remember it next time.
We were too slow writing this to race anyone. (I wasn't on line to write compile it so that's how it goes.) Wikipedia beat us by many hours!