Template:Did you know nominations/Heat Flow Experiment
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Heat Flow Experiment
- ... that the Apollo 16 Heat Flow Experiment was disabled when astronaut John Young tripped over a cable and tore it from its connector? Source: https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap16fj/a16summary.html
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hardpoint (missile defense) (In progress)
Created by Seddon (talk). Self-nominated at 02:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Heat Flow Experiment; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The article has some text taken straight from this source without acknowledging this (and some of it is mangled in an attempt to avoid the copying, resulting in sentence fragments like " and would have . ". The source is presumably not copyrighted (US government?) but plagiarism needs acknowledgmente/attribution anyway. Fram (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ah good catch! I also saw you caught my accidental drafting in the mainspace so thank you catching that as well! I should probably wait till the next day before publishing in the future. Regarding the copyright, my working assumption is that its not PD and so I was taking care to rewrite everything, though not enough and I should have been more careful about copying snippets whilst writing in that process. The author was NASA's Principal Investigator for the experiment but those are roles rather than posts. Whilst its a post that is in some way remunerated by NASA, I think the relationship is more like that of a contractor rather than an employee and so I don't think PD-GOV applies. I've rewritten and added a source. Seddon talk 12:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Indicating that a review is needed. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
@Seddon: It is an American mission but the article uses some British english like "whilst" and "centimetres" - I changed it to American. I also did a bit of copyediting which you can check and undo if you do not like. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC) y
- @Lightburst: this looks fantastic! Thanks!Seddon talk 19:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Seddon, there are issues with the nomination of the QPQ provided, so you will either need to ensure those issues are resolved or review another nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: WP:QPQ Seddon has complied with the requirement by doing a full review, and it appears to be ongoing.
A review need not end in a check mark to count as a QPQ
. Bruxton (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)- You are contradicting yourself Bruxton: an ongoing review cannot be full. It does not matter if the review ends in a check mark or a failure mark, but it needs to end to count as a QPQ: “ you will need to provide a link, at your nomination, to your completed QPQ review”. Otherwise you could start ten reviews, never finish them, and use them all as QPQs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- QPQs are sometimes open for a long time and this section would shut down if reviewers had to wait for a qpq conclusion before nominating their own article. I will ping @Theleekycauldron: and in case they are busy @RoySmith: for comments on Seddon's qpq and your suggestion that they should do another qpq. Bruxton (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Bruxton is correct, Seddon's QPQ is valid. The initial review need be full with respect to addressing all of the criteria, but it would be wholly unreasonable to expect that someone start and finish the review process in the week we give people to provide a QPQ, not least because nominators frequently don't respond in that time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- QPQs are sometimes open for a long time and this section would shut down if reviewers had to wait for a qpq conclusion before nominating their own article. I will ping @Theleekycauldron: and in case they are busy @RoySmith: for comments on Seddon's qpq and your suggestion that they should do another qpq. Bruxton (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are contradicting yourself Bruxton: an ongoing review cannot be full. It does not matter if the review ends in a check mark or a failure mark, but it needs to end to count as a QPQ: “ you will need to provide a link, at your nomination, to your completed QPQ review”. Otherwise you could start ten reviews, never finish them, and use them all as QPQs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: WP:QPQ Seddon has complied with the requirement by doing a full review, and it appears to be ongoing.
- @Lightburst: this looks fantastic! Thanks!Seddon talk 19:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Bruxton I'm not following. What's the problem with the QPQ? It looks like they reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Hardpoint (missile defense). What am I missing? RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Bruxton, RoySmith, Theleekycauldron, and AirshipJungleman29: Irrespective of the specifics of process (which would probably still be valuable to clarify on WT:DYK), the issues on the other nom should now be resolved anyway. Seddon talk 12:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like it was my mistake. Apologies for the misunderstandings, everyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Bruxton, RoySmith, Theleekycauldron, and AirshipJungleman29: Irrespective of the specifics of process (which would probably still be valuable to clarify on WT:DYK), the issues on the other nom should now be resolved anyway. Seddon talk 12:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)