Template:Did you know nominations/Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial and Helio Studies
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial and Helio Studies
- ... that TRUTHS will be a satellite that allows for precise calibration of Earth observation data from other satellites?
- Reviewed:
Ennegma (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC).
- Not a review, but "that many reports and academic publications were produced by Fox and collaborators in order to obtain both scientific and financial support for truths?" would make a cracking April Fools' hook.--Launchballer 13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- very clever Launchballer, that would indeed be a fun suggestion thank you! And, if we were closer to April now I would have liked to recommend it. But on balance I’d prefer to have this published sooner rather than later - this is my first proposal for a DidYouKnow after all. Ennegma (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ennegma: This article needs some work before nomination approval. Article is long enough and was created 2 days before nomination. Article is well-sourced and presentable. Hook is interesting and sourced. However, the article has issues with copyvio. I understand some of that is due to direct quotes, but there are a lot of sentences lifted directly from other articles that could be phrased and arranged differently, see https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Traceable_Radiometry_Underpinning_Terrestrial_and_Helio_Studies. Please let me know if this is addressed - Kimikel (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello user:Kimikel. I have made some minor adjustments to sections that were highlighted in the report you linked. However, there are several things that the Earwig tool highlights which are technical terms (e.g. "a primary standard cryogenic radiometer"; official names/proper nouns (e.g. "Cryogenic Solar Absolute Radiometer (CSAR)"; or direct quotes to either scientific descriptions (e.g. "constrain and improve retrieval algorithms") or important but non-encyclopedic-style phrases (e.g. "the heart of the calibration system"). Most importantly, there is a blockquote which describes the two primary objectives of the whole satellite - and because these sentences are scientifically specific, I didn't think it would be appropriate to paraphrase them or abridge them more than I already have. I note that User:CFA left a note on the article's talkpage two weeks ago that says "Note to future editors: Earwig scores high because of the large block quote in the Science section. There are no actual copyvios." I hope that is sufficient adjustment and explanation for this review process. Thank you.
