Talk:List of cosmic microwave background experiments

Image copyright problem with File:QUIET telescope illustration.jpg

The image File:QUIET telescope illustration.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

Please see the cleanup tag for the analysis of the current article sourcing. Please feel free to revert this tagging edit, if you can find a source that replaces the broken URL used for 52 of the 57 lines; however, then re-add the single source and the ref improve science article tags, because even when the link to this one ubiquitous web source is repaired, the article remains poorly sourced for its relying so much on it, for having entries without any sources, and for beginning a trend of OR in choosing primary sources to support entries. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

I don't think we have any inclusion criteria beyond "whatever is in the table at LAMBDA". I suggest that:

• Any experiment that has been deployed and taken data, and is listed in the table at LAMBDA, should be included.
• Any experiment that has been deployed and taken data, and has at least one respectable publication, should be included.
• Canceled experiments need not be included in general, although they could be included for good reason.
• Future experiments should only be included given substantial likelihood of deployment.

Other thoughts? --Amble (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Amble: It's nice to digitally meet you, and thanks for editing this article and topic! The criteria that you set out mostly make sense, but the problem is that they are arguable: what makes a "respectable publication", what is a "good reason", and what does "substantial likelihood" mean? As an alternative, maybe we should include experiments that meet the general notability requirements? I.e., if they have (or could have) an article, then they're worth including; if not, then they shouldn't be included? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think the inclusion criteria for the list should be somewhat broad, so that the list can show the overall history of the field. To me, that means that summary information like the table at LAMBDA is adequate secondary coverage for inclusion in the list, but probably not for a separate article. (Assuming in either case that we can determine details like hardware and observing seasons from primary sources.) Also, the GNG itself will also be arguable for experiments that have weak but nonzero secondary sources. Any criterion we adopt will likely be arguable to some extent.

I would say a "respectable publication" is something in a journal or proceeding that includes at least enough information to know the observing dates, frequency bands, and hardware setup. For "substantial likelihood of deployment" I mean that there's evidence from publications that the project is funded, has hardware work going on, and has concrete plans to deploy within a few years. In other words, we don't have to include every proposed experiment that has a name and a set of slides. The "for good reason" is intended to be vague, leaving open the possibility that a canceled experiment might have some reason to be included -- for example, Clover (telescope) has its own article. --Amble (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple instruments

For many of the listed experiments, multiple instruments have been fielded in different years, with very different properties. Examples are SPT-SZ vs. SPTpol, ACT vs. ACTpol, POLARBEAR vs. POLARBEAR2, and also COBE-DMR vs. COBE-DIRBE vs. COBE-FIRAS. These are different enough that it would be worth having separate sub-rows for each. I'll look into whether there's a way to do this... any other opinions? --Amble (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Following from my comment above, I think it makes sense to adopt a "one article, one line" approach here (and, as per my edits to BICEP and Keck Array, I think that most same-project upgrades should only be discussed in one article unless there's enough content to justify multiple ones). Most of the upgrades you are describing are upgrades that are re-using the same infrastructure but are implementing new detectors; the others are using different same-generation detectors with the same telescope. Either way, they're not really new instruments, so I think they should be covered in the same article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I see the appeal of "one article, one line", but in many cases the hardware is quite different, with different underlying technology and observing bands, and in most cases there's only partial membership overlap. For example, BICEP1 vs. BICEP2 were completely different detector technology with different frequency bands, different readout electronics, with some but not all of the same people. It makes it very difficult to represent in summary table form. In some cases, like SPT-SZ vs. SPT-pol, the science targets are also quite different. In the case of COBE there were three completely different instruments doing different things, sharing the same satellite platform. I think the ideal would be to have separate lines so that we can give the summary details of each, but with grouping of rows. Not sure whether this is technically possible. --Amble (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not included from LAMBDA

The following are in the current table at LAMBDA, but don't currently appear here: QMASK (joint data; not an expt); BICEP2; Keck Array; ACTpol (ACT upgrade); SPTpol (SPT upgrade); Quijote; COMPASS; PIPER; TRIS; Mustang; Mustang-2. --Amble (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Remaining to add: ACTpol (ACT upgrade); SPTpol (SPT upgrade); Mustang-2. --Amble (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Others to consider, EPIC, PIXIE, LightBird, GroundBird, COrE, SPT-3g, CMB-S4. --Amble (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

CBI and E-mode power spectrum

The article lede currently has "CBI, which made high-resolution observations and obtained the first E-mode polarization spectrum;" with a citation needed tag. This statement is debatable; DASI showed an EE spectrum, but didn't really have the signal-to-noise to characterize its shape. Any opinions on dropping this phrase? --Amble (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)