Talk:Voyager 2

Latest comment: 3 hours ago by The Herald in topic GA Review
Former featured article candidateVoyager 2 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 10, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on December 11, 2018.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 20, 2004, August 24, 2004, August 25, 2004, August 25, 2005, August 25, 2006, August 25, 2009, and August 20, 2010.

Please check a source that looks funny edit

The "From Engineering To Big Science" source (currently #5) looks funny / off because it has a long segment written with it. Is this meant to be in the article? Would other editors please check this? Astrolabe 150c (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Voyager 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: The Herald (talk · contribs) 10:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Cambalachero (talk · contribs) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply


Lead
  • Seems fine. The "as of April 2024" may be updated with the current numbers, but there's a hidden note of not doing so more than once a month, so I didn't touch anything. Is the idea to update it only when updating the month, to do it at some certain day, or some other precise system?
There was a discussion regarding the updation and a consensus was reached for the same. As of now, there is no certain date that is fixed for updation, but it is only for a reference point. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Images
Replaced the gallery with File:MHW-RTG.gif.
Removed
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Fixed. Added information and source.
Source added
Replaced link
Removed. Superfluous.
Fixed
Replaced with the latter.

On a general overview, the article has way too many images. Try to be a bit more selective.

Yes, I agree. But given the nature of the project, I think the images enhance encyclopedic value of the article. If you don't agree, will a 5 image per section max criteria work? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Update: I have trimmed down the number of images in various sections. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
History
  • You should link to Syzygy (astronomy), a planetary alignment.
  • Saturn has many moons. Why was the study of Titan so important that they even considered sending both Voyagers there?
  • Why link "The Earth" instead of just "Earth"?
  • "Scientific instruments" has an unresolved maintenance tag
Done. Added a couple of sentence on Titan's importance and fixed the tag.
Mission profile
  • Section is only a pair of giant images and a table, with no text.
It was a section mistake. Mission profile is a level 2 heading and the following sub sections are level 3. The tables and images are summaries for the entire mission profile. Fixed.
Launch and trajectory
  • First paragraph has no references
  • File:Voyager 2 path.svg is unreadable at article size
  • File:Voyager 2 velocity vs distance from sun.svg, the first sentence is enough. The second is clarification and can go in a note, to reduce bloating.
  • Is it appropriate to place the images in the middle of the text? Why not at the end of the subsections, as below?
  • The second paragraph is only one line and a half long, and half of it is about Voyager 1.
  • "a complication arose" is a bit redundant, just explain directly what happened.
  • The paragraph ends with no reference
Done. In the second paragraph, it is a comparison of intial orbits of both the spacecrafts, which caused the differences in the arrival time and hence, subsequent changes in the mission profile. They are mentioned in the sub sections ahead.
Encounter with Jupiter
  • Exploration of Jupiter is about all explorations of Jupiter, not just the Voyager 2. Use {{See also}} or {{Further}}, not {{Main}}.
  • The article is already using way too many images, but this is a bit over the top. 8 images below and 2 to the sides, 10 images in a section!
  • Link to Volcanism on Io
Fixed. Took out some images, since they are explained in Voyager program.
Encounter with Saturn
  • Again, "Exploration of..." is not a proper main article
  • Again, way too many images.
  • There are photos of Enceladus, Tethys, Titan, Iapetus, but not a single word about what did Voyager 2 saw when they were studied.
Fixed. Removed extra images since they are described in the program article. Not needed here, IMO. Added info about Titan flyby.
Encounter with Uranus
  • Again, "Exploration of..." is not a proper main article
  • Given the discussion about Uranus' axis, a link to Uranus#Axial_tilt may be appropriate.
  • Unlink "hypothesis", just a common word.
Done.
Encounter with Neptune
Done
Interstellar mission
  • "In 1992, Voyager 2 observed the nova V1974 Cygni in the far-ultraviolet." Single-sentence paragraph. Nothing to add to it?
  • There is an unresolved "As of?" tag
  • 7th paragraph has no references
  • First they announce that Voyager 2 would reach interstellar space in 2016, and then report it in 2018. Was it a delay, or did they incorrectly measured the distances and speeds involved?
  • "As a failsafe measure, the probe is also programmed to autonomously reset its orientation to point towards Earth, which would have occurred by October 15." No reference
Done. Removed the uncited sections because I couldn't see the relevance of it. The 7th paragraph was removed because the data was old and there's no point describing the 2012 distances now, along with the comparison of Voyager 1. The delay was to reach a consensus on the sensor readings. I have added a few more details onto the paragraph.
Reductions in capabilities
  • Many entries in the table are not referenced.
  • We're in 2024. 2016 and 2020 are in the past, so "approx" is not appropriate. If those things happened in those years, remove it. If the happened in another year or not yet, fix it.
  • "The probe is expected to keep transmitting weak radio messages until at least the mid-2020s, more than 48 years after it was launched." Does NASA have further plans for Voyager when that moment comes, or will it be completely on its own from then on?
The planned turning off in 2016 and 2020 was never carried out as no record exists. So I have removed them. Added references and expanded future of the probe.
Golden record
Linked.

As of May 14 the nominator was on vacation, so this review will be on hold until he returns and has a chance to answer it. Cambalachero (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The herald is back from his vacations. The "On hold" week for this nomination starts today. Cambalachero (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cambalachero: thanks for the review. Apologies for the delay in response, but I have addressed the points and please have a look at the updated version. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply