Talk:Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment

A fact from Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 May 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that LACE found a pre-dawn breeze on the Moon?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment.

Wikipedia

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that LACE found a pre-dawn breeze on the moon? Source: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/as17psr.pdf

Created by Seddon (talk). Self-nominated at 16:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

QPQ: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Atomitat

The hook is great, but it can't be easily verified because the cite is to a 656-page document – the footnote in the article needs to give the page numbers of the document that it is referencing. The article length is okay, the move-to-user-space date versus filing date is okay, the article neutrality is okay.

It look like you have had five DYK nominations in the past, so a QPQ review needs to be done.

The article has an orphan tag on it that needs to be resolved. At the very least, there should be links to this from the Apollo 17 and Atmosphere of the Moon articles.

Done Seddon ^talk 18:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a missing categories tag that also needs to be resolved. These could include Category:Lunar science, Category:Apollo 17, and Category:Apollo program hardware.

Done Seddon ^talk 18:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the article needs a proofreading, as there are several passages that don't read right, have added words, are missing words, or are missing antecedents. Some of these include It likes freezes out and is adsorbed ... and During the experiments tenth lunar month the experiment developed a problem ... and The sum of all the known detected by LACE matches ... and ... and the seismic charges had been detonated, but there are likely others. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seddon: Please return to the nomination as soon as possible; this may be marked for closure if the issues remain unaddressed within a reasonable timeframe. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite multiple messages to the nominator (both on-Wiki pings as well as off-wiki DMs on Discord), the issues remain unaddressed apart from the orphan tag being removed. If the nominator returns and the issues are fixed, that would be great and the nomination can continue, but it has been a month since the initial review and the issues (including a lack of a QPQ) have remained unaddressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, the nominator edited the article about eight hours after you posted the above. Have the issues been addressed, aside from the QPQ review? (Note to Seddon: if you wish this to continue, you must provide a QPQ review. Technically, it should have been provided within seven days of the first request back on March 20; at this point, you have until April 26, seven days after the most recent request, to provide one if the other issues have been dealt with.) Also pinging reviewer Wasted Time R, who may be better placed to determine whether their issues have been addressed. Thanks to all involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look, it seems that the new edits were largely copyediting and the footnotes issues still need to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the footnotes-needing-page-numbers issue still remains as does the QPQ. Furthermore the copyediting is incomplete. For instance one of the things pointed out above was changed to During the experiment's tenth lunar month the experiment developed a problem with the instrument's high-voltage section, The sweep high voltage dropped ... There is an awkward repeat of 'the experiment' and there is a comma where a period should be. And a couple of other things pointed out above haven't been changed yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the page issue problem has been addressed, but not the copyediting. A QPQ also still hasn't been provided and it's been over a week already. Courtesy ping to BlueMoonset. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and Narutolovehinata5: I've done a further copyedit and complete a QPQ on Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Atomitat. Apologies for delays here. Seddon ^talk 22:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked and the hook is verified now and the QPQ is done. The article still doesn't explain what the seismic charges are (presumably part of some other experiment) and it would be nice if the article made clear what sum matched earlier Apollo experiments (total gasses?) but I think this review process has gone as far as it can go. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]