Talk:Researchers survey planet-sized space weather explosions at Venus

Review of revision 2416561 [Not ready]

Revision 2416561 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The paper itself is pay-to-read; Wikinews policy prohibits use of pay-to-read sources. That wouldn't be a problem if the only information needed from the paper were information that's visible before one hits the paywall, such as information in its abstract which is freely available. However, there's information here I wasn't able to verify, which might be behind that paywall. In particular, there's no mention of 2012 in any of the accessible sources. I don't know — and more to the point, can't figure out — what 3.06 sol means. I'd guess this might be a Venusian solar day, but I don't see that would be 774 Terrestrial solar days (those numbers do come from the freely available abstract). In the first clause of this article, there's a thirteen-word sequence taken verbatim from the paper's abstract. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 2416561 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The paper itself is pay-to-read; Wikinews policy prohibits use of pay-to-read sources. That wouldn't be a problem if the only information needed from the paper were information that's visible before one hits the paywall, such as information in its abstract which is freely available. However, there's information here I wasn't able to verify, which might be behind that paywall. In particular, there's no mention of 2012 in any of the accessible sources. I don't know — and more to the point, can't figure out — what 3.06 sol means. I'd guess this might be a Venusian solar day, but I don't see that would be 774 Terrestrial solar days (those numbers do come from the freely available abstract). In the first clause of this article, there's a thirteen-word sequence taken verbatim from the paper's abstract. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 2418123 [Passed]

Revision 2418123 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Unfortunately, afaics the data on the NASA page confirms what I was finding on my first review: 3.06 Venusian days is not 774 Terrestrial days, regardless of whether the days are sidereal or solar. So I weakened the statement. The comparison to HFAs at Earth in the last sentence, I cut as unverified; whether those things are said in the journal paper, I've no way of checking. The journal publication took place four days ago. However, I don't actually know whether the journal article was made available online on Tuesday, and the press release appears to have been two days ago. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 2418123 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Unfortunately, afaics the data on the NASA page confirms what I was finding on my first review: 3.06 Venusian days is not 774 Terrestrial days, regardless of whether the days are sidereal or solar. So I weakened the statement. The comparison to HFAs at Earth in the last sentence, I cut as unverified; whether those things are said in the journal paper, I've no way of checking. The journal publication took place four days ago. However, I don't actually know whether the journal article was made available online on Tuesday, and the press release appears to have been two days ago. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.