Talk:NASA's InSight lander and MarCO craft launch in new mission to Mars

Review of revision 4404510 [Passed]

Revision 4404510 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The lede paragraph was the weakest link in this article. The author should take more care to include as many of the 5Ws (who, what, where, when, why) as possible in the opening of the article. The title needed a little help, too. I hope I didn't overstep my bounds as a reviewer "not substantially involved in writing the article". Overall, however, it was a remarkably well-written article for what I gather is only the third submission from this author. Congratulations. 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 4404510 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The lede paragraph was the weakest link in this article. The author should take more care to include as many of the 5Ws (who, what, where, when, why) as possible in the opening of the article. The title needed a little help, too. I hope I didn't overstep my bounds as a reviewer "not substantially involved in writing the article". Overall, however, it was a remarkably well-written article for what I gather is only the third submission from this author. Congratulations. 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.

@SVTCobra: Imho your work on the lede here would be one of those cases where, as a reviewer, one couldn't do that much regularly but can push the limits a bit on a specific occasion whilst helping a newcomer learn. Every great once in a while I do that sort of limit-pushing myself (when it seems a good investment, considering the reporter). --Pi zero (talk)

Pi, see what you think about the title, the author complained that I said NASA launches, not ULA who is the contractor that did the Atlas rocket bit. If we need to change, let's do it as quickly as possible. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, PhilipTerryGraham: Done; I actually drafted a minimally intrusive change myself, and it came out substantially identical to PhilipTerryGraham's suggestion. It admittedly was an odd feeling to read a headline starting 'NASA launches' and then the lede starts by saying 'United Launch Alliance launched'. --Pi zero (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Of the massive task of review, the biggest part is the in-depth source-check, whose primary function is to verify every claim of fact in the article based on the cited sources. We tend to put a great deal of effort into documenting why we do things during review, and in this case the stuff about 11th and 12th was not found by the reviewer (in fact, I looked too and didn't succeed in verifying it either). If the reviewer doesn't succeed in verifying it, it must not be published; that's the nature of review. If the reviewer cuts information from the article for this reason, and the reporter wishes to restore it, the reporter should offer help on where to find the information in the cited sources, or the like. I earnestly recommend against being rude to the reviewer (a volunteer who puts in a massive effort for the sake of someone else's submission). --Pi zero (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I see you have further objections to some of the edits I made during my review:

• Discovery program sequence numbers: I removed because I did not see those numbers in the sources. With 9 sources, it is entirely possible that I simply missed it, but if I don't see it, I can't include it. However, just tell me which source it is in and I will happily add them back / sight your re-add.
• "request" → "contest": It is the NASA source that seems to deal with this and in it says "NASA's Discovery Program requested proposals". Even though there is a prize involved, not once is the word "contest" used.

I hope you are online so we can hammer out these differences quickly. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, Pi zero: I don’t understand. Most of these basic facts about the Discovery program can be looked up on associated Wikipedia articles, though. It’s that easy to research. InSight is the 12th mission, and 11th successful after one failure (CONTOUR), and NASA chooses its Discovery and New Frontiers candidates through competitions. Institutions submit proposals, some go through as “finalists”, and winners are chosen. Contest by definition. In either case, I have never heard competitions be referred to as “requests”... that’s just bizzare. —PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian, I am sure you know that Wikis and other user-edited sites are not accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia ... same here. Sorry, mate. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as why there might be a difference between "requesting proposals" yet offering a reward like a contest, consider an academic scholarship to a university. Students are submitting entries hoping to get the 'prize' of a scholarship, but would you call that a "contest"? Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Wikipedia is inherently not useable as a source. If you see a fact on Wikipedia and want to use it here, you have to find and cite a trust-worthy source for the information. Sometimes, Wikipedia itself appears to provide such a source, which might serve your purpose, but often the source that appears to be cited for the claim you're interested in does not, in fact, verify that claim.

Btw, the licenses are not compatible from Wikipedia to Wikinews, so don't copy text from Wikipedia to here (it's a violation of Wikipedia's license to do so). --Pi zero (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

(Of course, there is no rational reason why Wikipedia couldn't use Wikinews articles (in the modern era) as sources, but there are strong emotional and political reasons for them to refuse to do so.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)