Talk:GOES-16

Backwards copy?

De728631 has placed a {{Backwardscopy}} tag here, relating to http://www.goes-r.gov/spacesegment/ups.html. I'm having difficulty seeing how that could be the case. The first archived version of that page that I've been able to find is this one, dated 11 August 2011. Our article was created on 24 May 2012. A DupDet report shows substantial overlap between the current state of our page and the 2011 archive of theirs. What am I missing? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I was looking for the exact arrangement of text at the GOES-R page but the dup report reveals that there is identical text. And that 2011 version at GOES-R contains also the paragraph about SARSAT which has so far been attributed to NOAA. I am working on attributing the various public domain sources at the Wikipedia article page, so that was a valuable discovery. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow, I did find a backwardscopy for the Ground Segment. Compare Wikipedia 2012-07-25 to GOES-R 2012-06-12 and 2012-09-13. You will see that the latter includes the phrasing from our Wikipedia article that was not yet present in the June version of GOES-R's website. De728631 (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the attributions, De728631! I just have no idea why we "welcome" this kind of content in this project, it seems entirely inappropriate (see below). I'm obviously firing on only three cylinders today because I couldn't see the backwards copying you mention - all I was able to see was the replacement of "GOES-R" with "NOAA" in the first sentence. Anyway, since both pages were written by the same person it is probably pretty much academic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Tone, style, etc.

This article reads as if were copied verbatim from the official web pages of the project. That's hardly surprising, because that is exactly where it was copied from. To become a Wikpedia article it needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral and encyclopaedic tone and style, based on verifiable independent sources. At present it seems pretty much to fall under speedy deletion criterion G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

ABI

"ABI was developed from a similar instrument operated by Japan onboard Himawari 8."

This is actually backwards. The Advanced Himawari Imager (AHI) was developed based on ABI, they just happened to launch first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.17.179.84 (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

fixed. Pgramsey (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Officially renamed GOES-16 by NESDIS on 11/30/16

Per the official NESDIS GOES-R blog "Yesterday, November 29, 2016, NOAA's GOES-R satellite executed its final liquid apogee engine burn without anomaly. This has placed the satellite approximately 22,000 miles away with an inclination of 0.0 degrees, meaning it has reached geostationary orbit. GOES-R is now GOES-16!" This warrants a change to the page name. Since there are references to GOES-R when talking about both the satellite and the program/series, some references to GOES-R will likely remain after the page move and preliminary page edits. I'm sure there is other updated information since the last few updates. It would be much appreciated for any of the primary contributors to this page to check behind my work. Thanks in advance. AJC3fromS2K (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GOES-16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205071513/http://www.goes-r.gov/users/proving-ground.html to http://www.goes-r.gov/users/proving-ground.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:GOES-16/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Intro Split this sentence up: GOES-16, formerly known as GOES-R before reaching geostationary orbit, is the first of the GOES-R series of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) operated by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as the current operational geostationary weather satellite in the GOES East position at 75.2°W, providing a view centered on the Americas. Two sentences back-to-back starting with Following, mix it up: Following several launch delays, Add ULA acronym: United Launch Alliance I prefer Month Day, Year format for articles on American things, not sure if there is a policy that supports that though..: 18 December 2017 I think since GOES-16 serves as the principal imager for the Atlantic basin, I've kept dmy to maintain the international perspective. I'm okay with changing that though since the development was almost entirely American. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC) That's fine. Change 10 → ten, 5 → five: 10 years, with 5 additional years as a backup for successive GOES spacecraft. Background From The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite program to The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) program A bit weird to spell out one of those acronyms and not the other, recommend being consistent with whichever you prefer: between NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) This seems grammatically shaky, restructure it: In 1999, the NOAA enumerated instrument requirements for the next generation of GOES imager and sounder in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) for the Evolution of Future NOAA Operational Geostationary Satellites. Several long sentences in a row; split it at the semicolon for some variety: Top priorities included continuous observation capabilities, the ability to observe weather phenomena at all spatial scales, and improved spatial and temporal resolution for both the imager and sounder; these specifications laid the conceptual foundations for the instruments that would eventually be included with GOES-16. Add a comma after ten: As the instrument became further realized, the number of potential spectral bands increased from the initial ten to twelve by October 1999. The NOAA, or NOAA? Saying "The NASA developed" would be weird, same for NOAA. I think you should remove 'the' before NOAA throughout the article: 2006, the NOAA dropped Spacecraft design Fuel → propellant With fuel, GOES-16 Maybe replace 'after deployment' with 'in space'? launch and unfurled after deployment I think in this case deployment would be more appropriate as this would only occur when the spacecraft component detached from the launch vehicle. "In space" would be more vague . TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Missing a word here I think: a modified version of the SpaceWire protocol was developed specifically GOES-16 Instruments While technically grammatically correct, refactor this sentence to use less commas. Very jarring having so many in close proximity: The ABI and GLM make up GOES-16's Earth-facing, or nadir-pointing, instruments, and are positioned on a stable precision-pointed platform isolated from the rest of the spacecraft. If you are going to spell it out in Instruments, makes more sense to do so in the section above: The Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) Remove 'being', same comment for later in the sentence with silicon being used Still need to remove this 'being': mercury cadmium telluride being used Remove the second 'on': systems on Earth and on satellites. Capitalize Sun?: beyond the sun's east Break out the acronyms in this sentence: GOES-16 features two instruments, MAG and SEISS, that provide localized in-situ observations of high-energy particles and magnetic fields in geostationary orbit.[25] Spell six: the 6 electron Shouldn't this be 'an increase over'? The suite monitors 27 differential electron energy channels and 32 differential proton energy channels, and increase over the 6 electron energy channels and 12 proton energy channels monitored by the previous GOES-N generation of satellites. You just said unintended, and since there is no wanted arcing or ESD, you can probably get rid of the word unwanted: causing unwanted Should it be medium- to high-energy electrons? I always forget. medium to high-energy electrons Yeah, you're right. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 19:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Make a separate paragraph somewhere in the Space Environment In-Situ Suite (SEISS) section. Maybe change to "can cause biological effects on humans at high altitudes'? can cause biological effects on astronauts or humans on high-altitude aircraft Think you are missing a word: , as well HF blackouts Launch and mission profile Unique Payload Services and data processing Can we replace one of these former with past or another synonum? The GRB replaces the former GOES VARiable (GVAR) service used by former GOES spacecraft. Think you can get rid of 'received' that rebroadcasts received in-situ ground Removed distribution GOES data is also distributed through other distribution channels Wrong tense: The first six years from 2008 to 2014 would be primarily dedicated
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Remove the blue and red background in the table, folks with visual disabilities will have a hard time viewing it, and there is a column that says blue/red closeby.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Any way we can source to less primary sources, such as the Boeing and ULA citations?
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Is 'CIMSS Satellite Blog' a reliable source? I believe so. The blog is authored by those working directly with CIMSS at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and per WP:BLOGS if their prior work in the field has been published by third-party sources, then the source is indeed credible. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Citations 22 and 25 are to the same place but have different information. I believe they are on the same general website but they do indeed link to different pages. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Citation 102 spells out NOAA while the rest use the acronym Sometimes it is NASA/NOAA, other times NOAA/NASA. Does the order matter? Not really, but I made it consistent. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	32% copyvio via Earwig, just common words, no issues What information is taken from the sources in the attribution section?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	In the background, ATS and SMS were precursors, did Landsat influence at all? Maybe, but I don't see any instrument heritage from Landsat on GOES. Not a whole lot of similarities between the two programs aside from being satellite imagers as Landsat is a polar orbiter. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Should the 'GOES-R Proving Ground' be in this article, or a separate article on the GOES-R series of satellites? I think it would be ore appropriate there, though such an article doesn't currently exist. For now it seems that GOES-R is the best place to have that section since it was the first GOES-R satellite so it has some clout in the matter, though I'm open to splitting that section off. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 19:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Hmm, I think one of us should probably make that article and move the information there. If you are busy, I can try to find time to get something started.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:GOES-R SPACECRAFT.jpg - Image not on source page File:GOES-R_logo.png - Dead link File:GOES 16 Advanced Baseline Imager multi-channel of North America 20170115 1807.png - looks good File:GOES-16 first GLM data.jpg - Flickr says credit is NOAA/NASA File:GOES-16 first EXIS data.png - Flickr says credit is NOAA/NASA File:GOES-16 first SUVI data.png - Flickr says credit is NOAA/NASA File:GOES-16 first magnetometer data.jpg - Flickr says credit is NOAA/NASA File:GOES-16 first SEISS data.png - Flickr says credit is NOAA/NASA File:KSC-20161119-PH AWG03 0010 (31122848515).jpg - credit should be NASA/Tony Gray & Tim Terry per the Flickr page File:NOAA WCDAS2.png - Photo is pretty low quality can you find another one? Also recommend transferring to Commons File:GOES-R CI Map Updated 6.12.13.png - looks fine Some good, real images of the satellite located here. Recommend inclusion in the article. Here is a great image of EXIS. Recommend you do a deeper dive for media on this topic.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Images resourced and credits changed where needed. No higher resolution version of NOAA WCDAS2.png exists, and I have gone ahead and endorsed a transfer of that image to Commons. In the attribution section, part of the descriptions of Level 1a, 1b, and 2 data found in [note 3] are taken from Data Processing Levels. The description of GOES-16's functions, namely "...cloud formation, atmospheric motion, convection, land surface temperature, ocean dynamics, flow of water, fire, smoke, volcanic ash plumes, aerosols and air quality, and vegetative health" are taken from Instruments: Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI). --TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 21:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Made changes related to comments made on July 22. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 17:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• @TheAustinMan and Kees08:. How are we going with the review? It has been open for over three months now. AIRcorn (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Right, back at it. Kees08 (Talk) 23:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• • • Just made additional edits related to additional comments made since my last edits on the article. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @TheAustinMan: I think that's all the comments, besides any follow ups I have. I will go through and work on crossing off what you have already completed so the remaining items are more clear. Kees08 (Talk) 05:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I will pass this now. Sorry for the long time reviewing. I would recommend using some of the images in the link I posted above, there are higher quality images than the ones in this article. Kees08 (Talk) 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)