Talk:NASA launches exoplanet-hunting satellite TESS

The two sources I've listed here are both very rich, and there are lots of things that this story could focus on. I invite collaboration. This is an unusual situation: We have two days to scrub! Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Remember your audience

This article has a lot of good information on it and hits facts like a heat-shaking missile, problem is - typical readers don't understand it. For example "exoplanets". Do you think, John Doe knows what an exoplanet is, let alone cares about it's existence. Do not misunderstand me, the information is important but present it differently for maximum effectiveness. Another example, the article talked about planets with proportionate distances from our Sun to Earth, which is usually referred to as goldilocks zone. A statement most individuals can relate to and understand. Be a good ambassador of the information to the public. AZOperator (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You will see that the term "habitable zone" is defined in context.

You truly believe that "exoplanets circling stars within 30 light-years of the Sun ... planets" does not indicate to a fluent reader that the satellite is looking for planets not circling our own sun? Not a rhetorical question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you truly think people know that Pluto is a dwarf planet or can define what a dwarf planet is? As far as John Doe is concerned, this is waste of tax dollars observing objects, no one in their lifetime will get close to. Back to the what have you done for me lately sort of thing. AZOperator (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(Surely it depends which John Doe you're talking about.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

<does double-take> Pluto? Dwarf planet? I don't see either one in this article. --Pi zero (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

in all fairness, within 30ly includes the area in this solar system.
•–• 03:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't have heat-seeking missiles either. Had to let that one percolate before I realized it was just an expression what with there being non-figurative rockets in this article. But using "dwarf planet" as an example, it's one of those terms that would depend on context. I guess I'd define it in text unless the text around it made it clear what it meant, which is very possible for such an intuitive term.

Also please note that the source template is not required for external links, and I found it didn't work very well with this website. Reformat the external links if you want to but please do not either remove them flat-out or complain to me that I selected another of the article's acceptable options. I don't mind when you do it your way, but it troubles me that you want me to do it your way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I am still mad they demoted Pluto. AZOperator (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4400555 [Passed]

Revision 4400555 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I really wanted to provide here a complete list of all the most important-and-straightforward points from the review; but after seven hours on this review, I don't think I have the additional meticulous effort in me to collect it all from the article's edit history. 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 4400555 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I really wanted to provide here a complete list of all the most important-and-straightforward points from the review; but after seven hours on this review, I don't think I have the additional meticulous effort in me to collect it all from the article's edit history. 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.