The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
missions to Mars - consider unlinking, as the link leads to an article that is only about past missions, not future ones. I would link Mars here instead.
Done: I got some access to the internet, so I'll do a few of the simpler ones here. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link Cape Canaveral; orbit; geologic forces (I would use Geology of Mars); reconnaissance; spectrometer.
What is a radar?
Done I'm not too sure what you mean, but I've clarified it to "Subsurface radar" and linked to SHARAD. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has been active – ‘MRO has been active’?
The references are used to cite uncontroversial information, and as this information should already be stated in the main text of the article, they are are not needed here.
Partly done: I left the source for the stat about data returned, since it's not in the body. I'll add a mention of the data returned stat when I get access to my laptop. Mobile editing is painful. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this image would be better used in the infobox than the current one.
However this has been reverted by another editor, imo for no good reason. I'll message this person. AM
JPL - use the full name, as the abbreviation will be unfamiliar to many readers (see MOS:ABBR). Ditto APL / ASI.
MRO - if the full name of the spacecraft is written in italics, the abbreviation should be as well.
Done in lead. I'll work through the rest of the article later. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done All: Back home, so I should be able to work through these much quicker. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to launch in 2005 – ce to ‘to be launched in 2005.
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter - ‘Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO)’, as MRO appears later in the paragraph.
All Done: is the abbreviation clarification needed if it's already in the lead? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as the lead is considered to be separate from the main text. It is a stand-alone summary of the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 Mission objectives
Consider enlarging the image still further, to at least upright=2, and possibly more.
It might be useful to readers if "mission support" objectives is explained briefly (in brackets or perhaps as a separate note).
November 2006 – November 2010 - ‘November 2006 to November 2010’ for the sake of consistency.
designed – ‘initially designed’ sounds better imo, as they were later extended.
Convert the lists to prose (for the reasons, see MOS:LISTBASICS).
It’s not clear exactly what the dates in brackets represent. I would not use brackets here, but incorporate the dates into the sentence.
All Done. Might want to check over the prose I converted. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3 Launch and orbital insertion
Link trajectory correction maneuvers in the caption and the text {Orbital maneuver).
The launch image is purely decorative. By removing it, a sandwiching issue in this section also disappears (MOS:SANDWICH).
I think we should keep the launch image. A large portion of spacecraft articles contain one, and it helps as a visual aid. To avoid the sandwiching issue, it could be moved to the other side, once one of the animations has been removed. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second animation provides little to helps understand the text, and is not visually useful after a few seconds (the pink orbit lines turn into a block of colour). I would declutter this section by removing the image.
imo, the first animation is the least useful as the information is already covered in the diagram. At least the second animation helps provide a visual aid for the process of aerobraking. A multiple image template could also work, like at Artemis 1#Mission_profile_animation. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mars Global Surveyor and the rovers Spirit and Opportunity have since ceased – this, and the text that follows, should be edited out as being excessively detailed, or placed in a separate note. I would do the former.
This altitude depends on the thickness of the atmosphere because Martian atmospheric density changes with its seasons – this should be cut, as it strays off the topic.
were turned off prior to the solar conjunction – readers may be interested in knowing why was this done. Is the information avaialble?
Done. Added some info plus a source. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter - as these has been abbreviated as the MRO in the Pre-launch section, I would be consistent and from then on use the abbreviation instead the full name.
afaik, it has something to do with how space is too cold for technology to operate, so instruments and tech needs to be "warmed up" to be able to function. if you need further clarification just lmk. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concept now, perhaps a brief explanation here for the sake of any curious readers would work. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added efn with text and source: Due to the coldness of space, spacecraft instruments need to be "warmed up" to operate properly.[1]ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
enabled discoveries regarding – ‘that have revealed more of’ sounds slightly better imo.
The section’s images have created another sandwiching issue, which needs to be sorted.
I would replace terrain with ‘relief’ (a minor point).
(CO2) is not needed.
is slightly - ‘was slightly’.
(not GA) the best ever pictures of a comet from the Oort cloud – is an image available? Readers might be interested (and it would break up the text somewhat).
ok, well an image is available but it looks a bit less interesting as I thought it would look. See: [1]. I'll leave the decision up to you. I can probably use a different image though, probably from the gallery, to break up the text. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See what you mean, let's forget the image for now. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Britain's – consider amending to ‘the British Mars lander’.
Britain's sounds more concise than "the British Mars lander" ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. AM
more than 11 years prior - is redundant text.
components - consider amending to ‘MRO components’.
Mostly Done: I need to do a bit more research about the banded terrain part, as it's lacking a source, but I think terrain would be better. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5 Instruments
NThe last two sentences need to be copy edited, the information is outdated.
Done. I've added some missing info about some science experiments, so you might want to check "Engineering instruments and experiments" again. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've added a sentence about the final tech demonstration that was missing, if you want to check it over. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries here. AM
The images for the main instruments are rather too large for the paragraphs they are placed next to, and imo causes this section to look untidy. One solution to consider to to put them images together here, at the top of the section, using {{multiple image}}. Happy to help here if you want. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks! I only have access to a phone rn; editing is sometimes annoying. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5.1 HiRISE
I would amend the title to HiRISE, as the acronym has already been introduced. Ditto the titles from 5.2 to 5.6, the abbreviation/acronyms for these have also been mentioned.
(μrad) – is redundant. Ditto or NIR.
''28 Gigabit (Gb) – consider amending this to ‘28 Gb’.
The shutdown of CRISM has already been discussed in the Timeline section. Considering the size of that section, I would move the relevant paragraph from there to here, and edit out any duplicate information.
Comment: I've shortened the shutdown sentence here to "The CRISM instrument was shut down on April 3, 2023," but I think leaving the more detailed explanation in the Timeline section would be better. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
velocity – this has a specific meaning in physics that is not the same as speed (see Velocity). I would amend the text to say ‘speed’, unless the technical term is intended.
proven its functionality by relaying – simplify to ‘relayed’?
Although moon imaging is not mission critical – ‘Although this is not critical’ sounds better imo.
There is a proposal to search for small moons, dust rings, and old orbiters with it - a few points here. Which “old orbiters” are being referred to here? Can information about the proposal be updated, as we are talking here about an idea brought up over 10 years ago? Who proposed the idea?
All Done: For the proposal, I don't think it was ever followed up on; searching the title only gives this source, it doesn't seem like any of the suggested tests have been done, and the MRO isn't mentioned in this capacity in any of the sample return documents I've checked. I've decided to remove it. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6.2 Power systems
more than 26% of the Sun's energy – amend to something like ‘more than 26% of the Sun's energy it receives’ so that the text makes more sense.
At Mars – ‘Whilst orbiting Mars’ sounds better imo.
All Done. Changed "more than 26% of the Sun's energy" to "more than 26% of the energy it receives from the Sun." ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6.3 Electronic systems
Link flash memory.
specially built – ‘purpose-built’ sounds slightly better imo.
The Electra communications package is a UHF software-defined radio (SDR) that provides a flexible platform for evolving relay capabilities – this sentence and the one that follows are already to be found in Engineering instruments.
is projected to be – should presumably now be amended to ‘is’.
such as launch – as this has now happened, the text needs to be amended.
The Ka-band subsystem was used for demonstration purposes – consider amending to something like ‘The Ka-band subsystem was used to show how such a system could be used by spacecraft in the future’ to make the text easier to understand.
All Done. Added abit extra info as well. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't actually know what this means, and I can't find a source for this so it's been removed. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The caption does not fully explain the image. It isn’t drawn to scale (and this isn’t stated on the image itself), so I would mention this in the caption. The image needs to be moved to so it sits beside the text, not underneath it.
Graph is pretty outdated, being created before the MRO was even launched. There doesn't seem to be an updated version from NASA (afaik), so I've removed it to free up some space for an image from the gallery. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
accelerometer - Move the link to where it first appears (Engineering instruments).
Consider avoiding using the five subtitles here. Removing them wouldn't make this section overlong. I would then place the images together at the bottom of this section, something that imo unifies the text and makes the section less cluttered.
Mostly Done. I merged the related subtitles together (Ice + ice and chlorine + aqueous). I kept the subtitle for the slope lineae mainly to preserve {{main article}}. Now that there are three sections for three images, I think keeping them at their respective section should be fine. Feedback is appreciated, though. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I'm not sure the main article hatnote is appropriate here, as the link leads to an article that is not directly about the MRO, and so it is off topic. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with the Compact Imaging Spectrometer (CRISM) on board the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter - simplify to ‘using CRISM'.
five locations. Three of the locations are in the Cebrenia quadrangle – amend to ‘five locations, three of which were in the Cebrenia quadrangle’ to improve the prose.
This set of galleries (and therefore the subsections) are superfluous, as the images are available in the Common category associated with this article (see WP:GALLERY). Any of the images can be used to illustrate the text (and there is room for them), they should be be moved to the right place in the article.
Done. Removed gallery section, was able to move around 4-5 images back into the article. Might want to check image placement, since a few of them are only related to the text they are placed next to through only 1 or 2 sentences. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think space.com is a reliable source? Ditto spaceexplored.com; https://spaceflightnow.com.
WP:RSP? Author qualification looks fine as well. As for the other two, spaceexplored.com has been removed as part of the excessively detailed bit about the missions, and I'm working on finding a replacement for spaceflightnow.com. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for WP:RSP, a useful link I was unaware of. AM
As the New York Times is a subscription service, consider adding a ‘url-access=subscription’.
''NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter page – should probably be removed, as the official website is already provided in the infobox.
MRO Mars Arrival Press Kit (2006) – can easily be found in the offical MRO website, so isn’t needed here.
Interactive 3D map of Mars created by CTX – this map is produced from MRO equipment, but is not directly connected with the spacecraft itself, and so the link should be removed.
(Not GA) Consider collapsing the navboxes using {{Navboxes |title=Articles and topics related to the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter |state=collapsed |list1= {{Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter}} {{NASA navbox|state=collapsed}} {{Mars spacecraft}} {{Jet Propulsion Laboratory}} {{Solar System probes}} {{Orbital launches in 2005}} }}.
HiRISE Image Catalog – this is easily located in the external link given in the previous subsection, and so is not needed here.
Aren’t Kevin Gill’s images included within the HiRISE Image Catalog? If so, I wouldn’t include this external link. I have added it to the external links section of Areography.
All Done. Do you think adding these two websites would be helpful? [2][3]ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] looks fine; but [2] is no different. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 26th August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. I'll start checking the work you've already started on the review (many thank for this), crossing out where issues are sorted, and adding a small red cross (N) if they are not. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks! Should be complete in a few days. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all you are doing. I will be able to catch up on checking your replies tomorrow. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks! Should be complete tomorrow or the day after. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:05, 20 August 2023
I would add HiWish program to the See also section or within the article, I'll leave it to you to sort. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added to See Also. All of the GA related stuff has been dealt with, I believe. The final thing is the cn tag I added, which will probably be completed in a few hours.
About the infobox image, I kind of agree with what both of you said, so how about one of these two images (cropped, if neccessary)? [4] or [5] This image has a background and also contains a slanted view of the orbiter, so it shows more of the spacecraft. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be done. The sentence with the final cn tag was removed since I couldn't find a source to support it. Regardless, it sounded a bit weird being in the "Timeline" section, and looks more similar to RSL than banded terrain, since banded terrain is suspected to be caused by ice, not liquids. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, just noticed the first one is the exact same as the original, just with stars and mars. :) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a double check for small typos and the like, which I'll sort myself, and then then pass. Congratulations! Amitchell125 (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comet_C-2013_A1_Siding_Spring_flyby_from_Mars_Orbiter.jpg){kind=link}
) if they are not. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MRO_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MRO_01_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}