User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia minor fixes examples

Very minor wikignoming

 * 1) Energy in California - broken link fix with
 * 2) Vinnytsia - broken link  - just mark it as Dead link as there is no archived copy
 * 3) Vinnytsia - cite - formatting
 * 4) Phoenix Lights#Explanations Says 43x magnification. - seems to be typo, source provided says 60x with no occurrence of number 43 in the story  and there is no discussion of this on the Wikipedia article talk page.
 * 5) High-voltage direct current#Advantages for "losses are about 3% per 1,000 km" 3% figure is no longer mentioned in the cited page, or its backup in archive.org - need to replace with this cite:
 * 6) Space_elevator_economics - says a total cost of $6 billion. The cite says total cost $20 billion for first 10 years operation, or $40 billion with 100% contingency. Previously summarized correctly. Error introduced with this diff, by user who no longer exists, nothing on talk page to explain edit.
 * 7) AT2018cow need to correct 29 September to 28 September
 * 8) Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings add cite for  "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–59. add:
 * 9) "AIDA: Asteroid Impact and Deflection Assessment Mission Under Study at ESA and NASA" (PDF) broken url would fix by linking to Arxiv.org

Article is out of date

 * 1) Energy in California Our of date. Cited page now says that by SB 100 California is required to produce 60% renewables by 2030 and all electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045
 * 2) Carbon capture and storage#Abu Dhabi – United Arab Emirates latest news from them is that they plan to expand from their current capacity of 800,000 tonnes per year to capture 2.3 million tonnes per year by 2025 and 5 million tonnes per year before 2030
 * 3) Betelgeuse Caption highest-resolution image of Betelgeuse available. -  is about a decade out of date. Higher resolution image from 2009 already in this paper.
 * 4) Blue Brain Project and Human Brain Project Several years out of date. Mainly talks about their optimistic projections in the early days of the project.  Blue Brain Project has a note asking editors to update it. I would post to the talk page saying that it would be good to add a summary of this article from Scientific American to the page, as they don't cite it and don't seem to be aware of it. It is a good review from 2015 about some of the problems that arose in the attempts to simulate an entire human brain as a neural net.
 * 5) Shutdown of thermohaline circulation Hasn't had significant updates since 2015 as far as I can see. Should for instance cover the two Nature studies described in this Carbon Brief summary
 * 6) Renewable energy in China - last updated in 2018 and has note asking to be updated.
 * 7) 2013 Madagscar locust infestation - not updated since 2013 at the height of the swarm, add cite to FAO  and summary of response and outcome in 2014 and 2015.
 * 8) Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market - refers throughout to the draft article. Needs to be updated to refer to the article that they voted on, and in some cases changed (the article they passed differs in details from the last draft they cover there).

Article has a significant mistake in it

 * 1) List of smallest stars#Smallest stars by type - lists diameter of Luhman 16 as 45,000 km based on a link to a non notable Fandom wiki page in Polish. A more notable sourse would be this paper which says 1.0+/-0.2 times the radius of Jupiter i.e. 139,820 km +/-27,960 km'''
 * 2) Chicxulub crater says the impactor diameter ranges from 11 to 81 km. The cite is to a preprint, not a WP:RS. 81 is likely a typo for 18. Anyway we can't use it. Most often given as 10-15 km and here is a cite
 * 3) Asteroid_impact_avoidance#Deflection_efforts says "There is also the threat from comets entering the inner Solar System ... the warning time is unlikely to be more than a few months", source cited says "warning period for a potential impact from a long period comet may be as short as a year"

The meteorologist Jeff Haby explains that they are not he same. Dew point is the temperature for 100% humidity in normal conditions (no ice present). Frost point is the temperature for 100% humidity over an ice surface, a higher temperature. This distinction matters for growth of ice in clouds..
 * 1) 2010_AU118 "NEODyS lists the nominal 20 October 2020 Earth distance as 3 AU" - table now says 2.6771 au in the Delta column
 * 2) Dew_point - says "When the temperature is below the freezing point of water, the dew point is called the frost point"
 * 1) Nuclear_winter Cites an article in New Scientist that no longer exist. . The other cite, an online book chapter from 2002, describes a "nuclear summer" as an increase in harmful UV, not a warming With only these two cites, and lack of details, and can't find any other cites, will post to talk page suggesting "Nuclear summer" should probably be deleted due to insufficient evidence of notability".

Article is missing information or needs more cites

 * 1) Strange matter has a request for additional citations for verification. An excellent cite here for strangelets is the LHC safety review in 2011 which they don't cite. It also gives additional details that would be useful for the article and includes a short summary of the state of current research on strangelet production. The supplement to the review describes how the LHC confirmed the emerging picture.
 * 2) Type Ia supernova Only gives the critical mass for carbon -oxygen white dwarf stars. Also doesn't cover neutronization / inverse beta decay. Would post to talk page suggesting they have a section on this. Here is one source on the critical masses for white dwarfs for other compositions, such as Helium, Silicon, Sulfur, Iron etc,  also taking account of neutronization.
 * 3) Tunguska event would post telling them about a new reliable source I found, published in 2019, which gives the number of deaths as 3, a figure much discusssed there . Also, new cite from workshop at review level, describing an emerging consensus.
 * 4) Ozone#Physical properties -  Colour of ozone - only one cite to the online webelements page and minimal info. I found many better cites which the article could use and more details  such as and
 * 5) Copernicus_(lunar_crater) - should say something about impactor studies that suggest it formed as a result of an impactor perhaps about 7 km in diameter
 * 6) Rogue planet for the sentence "The researchers estimated from their observations that there are nearly two Jupiter-mass rogue planets for every star in the Milky Way" should mention the later 2017 study which cast doubt on that result using a larger population of microlensing events and finding at most one Jupiter-mass rogue planet for every four stars in the Milky Way.
 * 7) Life review - mainly relies on controversial sources such as Pim van Lommel. This may be a good source to add: "Conversely, precognitive visions (e.g., seeing the future) and the experience of life review were among the least frequently reported core features (i.e., occurring <30%)"
 * 8) History of SpaceX#Setbacks doesn't mention the first three rocket failures though it is covered in Falcon 1
 * 9) Bajii - should say that the 2016 sighting is regarded as unlikely . Also the lede is confusing, the sentence "It also signified the disappearance of an entire mammal family of river dolphins (Lipotidae)" can give an impression that it means extinction of all river dolphins worldwide. There are three other families of river dolphins. Would be clearer as "It also signified the disappearance of one entire river dolphin mammal family (Lipotidae), leaving only two extant families of river dolphins"
 * 10) Brane cosmology has nothing about colliding branes, a topic of many papers. Would post to the talk page suggesting it has a section on this topic. See google search. Just one or two sentences may be enough. The intro to this 2015 paper could be a starting point as it reviews previous work on the topic
 * 11) Loess Plateau has only six cites, last one dated 2006, doesn't even have the World Bank 2007 cite, and is quite short. Many figures from the World Bank page about the project Including: World Bank contributed about half of the funding (China was still eligible for International Development Association funding at the time of the project) For a cost of around half a billion dollars,more than 2.5 million people were lifted out of poverty, and incomes doubled, employment increased from 70 to 87%. Output per capita increased from 0.366 metric tons to 0.591 metric tons per year, Food security ensured, before the project frequent droughts required occasional government food aid. Now it has changed from a narrow range of food and low-value grain to high value products. Ecological balance restored in a vast area considered to be beyond help by many.  Sedimentation of waterways dramatically reduced. Other cites they could use include:  Soil erosion was reduced from 6579.55 tons per square kilometer per year to 1986.66 tons., . Conserved 177,000 square kilometers

Corrections I suggested on talk pages before I was blocked - not yet done
It is very rare for any other editor to respond to these talk page suggestions to fix an issue - I normally would go back and fix it after the mention but I had a lot on last year, and I have a backlog going back a year of things I never got around to fixing before I was blocked. I edited over 90 articles, most minor fixes without any talk page mention.

Suggested corrections with no response
These are relatively minor edits that normally editors would just do on the spot under WP:BOLD. I was super cautious and posted to the talk page first. With no response then the natural thing is to just be bold and make the edit - and if another editor wants to revert or fix what I wrote in some way it is then up to them.


 * 1) Wikipedia:Talk:Infrared_vision suggestion for new section about animals with infrared vision
 * 2) Wikipedia:Talk:Copyright_law_of_the_European_Union - should say that it has no impact on Wikipedia
 * 3) Wikipedia:Talk:Apparent_magnitude 31.5 seems a typo surely is 31.2
 * 4) Wikipedia:Talk:Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse article is out of date
 * 5) Wikipedia:Talk:Halton_Arp should say theory is out of date
 * 6) Wikipedia:Talk:Steady_state_model - should mention the red shift solution to Olber's paradox for the continuously expanding Steady State model.
 * 7) Wikipedia:Talk:Paleoclimatology should mention that earlier atmosphere could have been different in pressure - either lower or higher
 * 8) Wikipedia:Talk:Google_Translator_Toolkit - should say that adding new translations is no longer supported
 * 9) Wikipedia:Talk:ISS_ECLSS - just missing info from article
 * 10) Wikipedia:Talk:Apollo_Command/Service_Module Only half the module was painted white  - caption incorrect
 * 11) Wikipedia:Talk:Circumbinary_planet - diagram needs edited caption or redone to scale

Implemented fixes myself after talk page mention

 * 1) Wikipedia:Talk:Lagrange_point_colonization
 * 2) Wikipedia:Talk:List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events/Archives/2018/February
 * 3) Wikipedia:Talk:WR_104

Other editor reverted edit

 * 1) Wikipedia:Talk:WR_104 . I added a short sentence summary to the lede of the new tilt measurements mentioned later in the article. Never noticed that another editor corrected my summary to remove mention of the tilt diff.   I need to post to the discussion page asking if there is some reason this research shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. Also I have some new cites, see.
 * 2) Perigean spring tide#Confusing first paragraph - this was a mistake on my part and I agree with the correction.

Other editor said to go ahead and do it (but only noticed after block)

 * 1) Wikipedia:Talk:Great_Oxygenation_Event Should mention evidence for a mass extinction is not strong, with cites, similar edit for Wikipedia:Talk:Extinction_event
 * 2) Wikipedia:Talk:Goldfish To mention popular belief about goldfish and that it is incorrect, with cites
 * 3) Wikipedia:Talk:2012_(film) - I suggested that it should mention that NASA voted it the most scientifically flawed film ever made, in a conference held at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, in 2011 and another editor said to go ahead.  However, I since found that, though widely publicized at the time the Guardian took down its story after being informed by NASA that they have not been involved in the creation of any such list . So I would post saying sorry I was mistaken.

Mid discussion

 * 1) Wikipedia:Talk:Human_overpopulation should mention that middle of the range projection of the UN population division is to level off naturally due to prosperity rather than scarcity, and that many countries including Japan already have declining populations. I have many cites we can use for this.
 * 2) Wikipedia:Talk:Coral_reef - my suggestion was unclear partly because of a glitch in the section title - I meant to type "sponge reefs" not "coral reefs". Would post a comment in clarification. Also add that it could cover research into the coral reefs transitioning to sponge reefs in a warming world