User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia minor fixes examples: Difference between revisions
User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia minor fixes examples (edit)
Revision as of 13:58, 27 May 2019
, 4 years ago→Very minor wikignoming
| (45 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==Articles to fix==
===Very minor wikignoming===
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinnytsia#cite_ref-11 Vinnytsia - broken link] ▼
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights#Explanations Phoenix Lights#Explanations] Says ''43x magnification.'' - source provided says 60x with no occurrence of number 43 in the story<ref>{{cite news |first= Tony |last= Ortega |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=The Great UFO Coverup |url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1997-06-26/news/the-great-ufo-cover-up/ |work= |publisher=[[Phoenix New Times]] |date=1997-06-26 |accessdate=2008-03-15 }}</ref> and there is no discussion of this on the Wikipedia article talk page..▼
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Madagascar_locust_infestation 2013 Madagscar locust infestation] - not updated since 2013 at the height of the swarm, add cite to FAO [http://www.fao.org/emergencies/crisis/madagascar-locust/intro/en/] and summary of response and outcome in 2014 and 2015.▼
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Advantages High-voltage direct current#Advantages] for "losses are about 3% per 1,000 km" 3% figure is no longer mentioend in the cited page, or its backup in archive.org[https://web.archive.org/web/20190402151837/https://new.siemens.com/global/en/products/energy/high-voltage/high-voltage-direct-current-transmission-solutions/hvdc-classic.html] - need to replace with this cite:[https://iea-etsap.org/E-TechDS/PDF/E12_el-t&d_KV_Apr2014_GSOK.pdf]▼
* [[Wikipedia:Space_elevator_economics#Total_cost_of_a_privately_funded_Edwards'_Space_Elevator]] - 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, Error introduced with this diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_elevator_economics&diff=next&oldid=809771826]▼
* [[Wikipedia:AT2018cow]] need to correct 29 September to 28 September[http://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=12067]▼
* [[Wikipedia:Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Kettering_Grammar_School]] add cite for "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–59. add: [http://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html]▼
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDA_(mission)#cite_note-P._Michel-10 "AIDA: Asteroid Impact and Deflection Assessment Mission Under Study at ESA and NASA" (PDF)] broken url would fix by linking to Arxiv.org [https://web.archive.org/web/20150725182450/https://www-n.oca.eu/michel/AIDA_Papers/Abstract_AstroRecon2015_PMichel.pdf]▼
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California#cite_note-caiso-5 Energy in California - broken link] fix with [https://web.archive.org/web/20120201001423/http://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/RenewablesDemandResponseIntegration/default.aspx]
==Article is out of date==▼
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinnytsia#cite_note-10 Vinnytsia - broken link] - just mark it as {{tl|Dead link}} as there is no archived copy
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲===Article is out of date===
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Abu_Dhabi_%E2%80%93_United_Arab_Emirates 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<ref>[https://www.arabianbusiness.com/energy/408982-uaes-adnoc-says-moving-ahead-with-co2-capture-project UAE's ADNOC says moving ahead with CO2 capture project] Abu Dhabi National Oil Company plans to expand the capture, storage and utilisation of carbon dioxide</ref>▼
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse Betelgeuse] Caption ''highest-resolution image of Betelgeuse available.'' - is about a decade out of date. Higher resolution image from 2009 already in this paper<ref>Haubois, X., Perrin, G., Lacour, S., Verhoelst, T., Meimon, S., Mugnier, L., Thiébaut, E., Berger, J.P., Ridgway, S.T., Monnier, J.D. and Millan-Gabet, R., 2009. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.4167.pdf Imaging the spotty surface of Betelgeuse in the H band]. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 508(2), pp.923-932.</ref>.▼
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project Blue Brain Project] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project Human Brain Project] Several years out of date. Mainly talks about their optimistic projections in the early days of the project. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_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 <ref>Theil, S., 2015. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-brain-project-went-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/ Why the Human Brain Project Went Wrong—and How to Fix It]. Scientific American, 313(4), pp.36-42.</ref>.▼
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California#cite_ref-caiso_5-0 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{{refn|"In 2018, SB 100 (de León, 2018) was signed into law, which again increases the RPS to 60% by 2030 and requires all state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045. SB 100 will take effect on January 1, 2019." [https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/renewables/}}
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation 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 <ref>[https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlantic-conveyor-belt-has-slowed-15-per-cent-since-mid-twentieth-century Atlantic ‘conveyor belt’ has slowed by 15% since mid-20th century] 11 April 2018 </ref>▼
▲
▲
▲
▲
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China Renewable energy in China] - last updated in 2018 and has note asking to be updated.
▲
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market 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===
Parkos, D., Alexeenko, A., Kulakhmetov, M., Johnson, B.C. and Melosh, H.J., 2015. [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015JE004857 NOx production and rainout from Chicxulub impact ejecta reentry]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 120(12), pp.2152-2168{{quote| ''"Asteroids striking the Earth typically [Minton and Malhotra, 2010] have an impactor density of 2680 kg/m3and an impact velocity of 20 km/s.Assuming these properties, modern scaling relations indicate that a 10–15 km diameter projectile [Collins et al., 2008] created the 170 km diameter Chicxulub crater"''}}</ref>
* [[Wikipedia:Dew_point]] - says ''"When the temperature is below the freezing point of water, the dew point is called the frost point, as frost is formed rather than dew"'' <br />Though popular accounts of meteorology sometimes suggest this, dew point and frost point differ. Dew point is the temperature for 100% humidity of the air in normal conditions. Frost point is the higher temperature for 100% humidity over an ice surface. This distinction normally doesn't matter much, but is important for processes in clouds. Growth of icy particles is favoured over water droplets when both are possible, because the frost point is at a higher temperature than the dew point.<ref>I am summarizing there what the meteorologist Jeff Haby explains [http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/347/ here] {{quote|"The dew point is the temperature at which the air is saturated with respect to water vapor over a liquid surface. When the temperature is equal to the dewpoint then the relative humidity is 100%. The common ways for the relative humidity to be 100% is to 1) cool the air to the dewpoint, 2) evaporate moisture into the air until the air is saturated, 3) lift the air until it adiabatically cools to the dew point. <br /> "The frost point is the temperature at which the air is saturated with respect to water vapor over an ice surface. It is more difficult more water molecules to escape a frozen surface as compared to a liquid surface since an ice has a stronger bonding between neighboring water molecules. Because of this, the frost point is greater in temperature than the dew point. This fact is important to precipitation growth in clouds. Since the vapor pressure is less over an ice surface as compared to a supercooled liquid surface at the same temperature, when the relative humidity is 100% with respect to water vapor the relative humidity over the ice surface will be greater than 100%. Thus, precipitation growth is favored on the ice particles."}}</ref>▼
* [[Wikipedia:Nuclear_winter#Nuclear_summer]] Cites an article in New Scientist that doesn't seem to exist. [https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Researchers+Blow+Hot+and+Cold+Over+Armageddon%22&btnG=] and online post from 2002 that talks about increased UV not warming <ref>"Nuclear winter might give way to a nuclear summer. The high temperatures of the nuclear fireballs could destroy the ozone gas of the middle stratosphere. The result would be an increase in ultraviolet radiation on the surface of the earth, affecting both plant and animal life. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20110814051805/http://www3.wooster.edu/history/jgates/book-ch11.html]</ref> With only these two cites, and lack of details, will post to talk page suggesting "Nuclear summer" should probably be deleted due to insufficient evidence of notability.▼
▲
▲* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance#Deflection_efforts Asteroid_impact_avoidance#Deflection_efforts] says ''"in addition, the warning time is '''unlikely to be more than a few months'''"'', misparaphrases source, the source used says ''"warning period for a potential impact from a long period comet '''may be as short as a year'''"''<ref>[http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Report-Of-The-Task-Force-On-Potentially-Hazardous-Near-Earth-Objects-UK.pdf Report of the Task Force onpotentially hazardous NEAR EARTH OBJECTS]</ref> <br />In other words, in the source, a year is mentioned as the likely shortest warning period, while Wikipedia summarizes it as saying that few months is likely the longest. Also the source used is from 2008, before the start of most of our modern all sky surveys. Warning periods increased since then.
▲
▲* [[Wikipedia:2010_AU118]] "''NEODyS lists the nominal 20 October 2020 Earth distance as 3 AU (450,000,000 km; 280,000,000 mi).[7]''" - [https://newton.spacedys.com/neodys/index.php?pc=1.1.3.1&n=2010AU118&oc=500&y0=2020&m0=10&d0=15&h0=0&mi0=0&y1=2020&m1=10&d1=25&h1=0&mi1=0&ti=1.0&tiu=days table now says] 2.6771 au in the Delta column
===Article is missing information or needs more cites===
▲* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_review Life review] - mainly relies on controversial sources such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_van_Lommel 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%)"'' <ref>Charland-Verville, V., Jourdan, J.P., Thonnard, M., Ledoux, D., Donneau, A.F., Quertemont, E. and Laureys, S., 2014. [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00203/full Near-death experiences in non-life-threatening events and coma of different etiologies]. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8, p.203.</ref>
▲*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SpaceX#Setbacks History of SpaceX#Setbacks] doesn't mention the first three rocket failures though it is covered in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1 Falcon 1]<ref>{{Citation|author=Elon Musk|title=Making Life Multiplanetary {{!}} 2017 International Astronautical Congress|date=28 September 2017|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdUX3ypDVwI&t=12m04s|accessdate=28 November 2018}}
<blockquote>
And the reason that I ended up being the chief engineer or chief designer, was not because I want to, it's because I couldn't hire anyone. Nobody good would join. So I ended up being that by default. And I messed up the first three launches. The first three launches failed. Fortunately the fourth launch which was – that was the last money that we had for Falcon 1 – the fourth launch worked, or that would have been it for SpaceX.
</blockquote></ref>
▲* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loess_Platea 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<ref>[http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2007/03/15/restoring-chinas-loess-plateau Restoring China's Loess Plateau], March 15, 2007
</ref>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.<ref>Wang, X., Xiao, F., Feng, X., Fu, B., Zhou, Z. and Chan, C., 2018. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/earth-and-environmental-science-transactions-of-royal-society-of-edinburgh/article/soil-conservation-on-the-loess-plateau-and-the-regional-effect-impact-of-the-grain-for-green-project/ED153271361D40F95624548A926D2721 Soil conservation on the Loess Plateau and the regional effect: impact of the ‘Grain for Green'Project]. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, pp.1-11.</ref>, . Conserved 177,000 square kilometers <ref>Hirshfield, F. and Sui, J., 2011. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221912308_Changes_in_Sediment_Transport_of_the_Yellow_River_in_the_Loess_Plateau Changes in sediment transport of the Yellow River in the Loess Plateau]. Sediment Transport. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp.197-214.</ref>
==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.
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Infrared_vision]] suggestion for new section about animals with infrared vision
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Copyright_law_of_the_European_Union#Copyright_reform]] - should say that it has no impact on Wikipedia
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Apparent_magnitude#Faintest_object_seen_by_hubble]] 31.5 seems a typo surely is 31.2
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse#Updating_Post-Cold_War_attack_scenarios_section]] article is out of date
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Halton_Arp#Doesn't_make_it_clear_it's_an_out_of_date_theory]] should say theory is out of date
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Steady_state_model#Olber's_Paradox]] - should mention the red shift solution to Olber's paradox for the continuously expanding Steady State model.
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Paleoclimatology#Atmospheric_pressure]] should mention that earlier atmosphere could have been different in pressure - either lower or higher
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Google_Translator_Toolkit]] - should say that adding new translations is no longer supported
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:ISS_ECLSS#Power_requirements]] - just missing info from article
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Apollo_Command/Service_Module#Skylab_Apollo_Command_module_half_white_half_unpainted]] Only half the module was painted white - caption incorrect
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Circumbinary_planet#Diagram_is_a_bit_misleading]] - diagram needs edited caption or redone to scale
===Implemented fixes myself after talk page mention===
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Lagrange_point_colonization#Stability_of_L4,_L5_questioned]]
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events/Archives/2018/February]]
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:WR_104#Not_going_to_hit_Earth_-_pretty_much_certain_now]]
===Other editor reverted edit===
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:WR_104#Not_going_to_hit_Earth_-_pretty_much_certain_now]] . 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WR_104&type=revision&diff=825405087&oldid=825310841 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 [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.08525.pdf] [https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2018/10/aa32817-18/aa32817-18.html].
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Perigean_spring_tide#Confusing_first_paragraph 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)===
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Great_Oxygenation_Event#Was_the_great_oxygenation_event_a_mass_extinction?]] Should mention evidence for a mass extinction is not strong, with cites, similar edit for [[Wikipedia:Talk:Extinction_event#Was_the_great_oxygenation_event_a_mass_extinction?]]
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Goldfish#Perhaps should menion: popular belief that the common goldfish is the only animal_that can see both infrared and ultraviolet light]] To mention popular belief about goldfish and that it is incorrect, with cites
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:2012_(film)#Most scientifically flawed and absurd science fiction film ever made]] - 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.<br><br>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<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/jan/05/nasa-2012-flawed-science-fiction Nasa names 2012 most absurd science-fiction film of all time ]{{quote|"This article was taken down on 19 January 2011 after Nasa informed us that the organisation had not been involved in the creation of any list of the least scientifically accurate science-fiction films."}}</ref>. So I would post saying sorry I was mistaken.
===Mid discussion===
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Human_overpopulation#Article seems out of date - doesn't mention that population is leveling off naturally as a solution]] 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.<ref>Samir, K.C. and Lutz, W., 2017. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014001095 The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: Population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100]. Global Environmental Change, 42, pp.181-192.</ref><ref>[https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/ World Population Prospects 2017] online graphs of the World Population Division</ref><ref>[http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/09/18/world-population-to-keep-growing-this-century-hit-11-billion-by-2100/ World population to keep growing this century, hit 11 billion by 2100], University of Washington news</ref><ref>Gerland, P., Raftery, A.E., Ševčíková, H., Li, N., Gu, D., Spoorenberg, T., Alkema, L., Fosdick, B.K., Chunn, J., Lalic, N. and Bay, G., 2014. [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6206/234.abstract World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science, 346(6206), pp.234-237].</ref>
# [[Wikipedia:Talk:Coral_reef#Reefs_in_the_past_doesn't_mention_coral_reefs]] - 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<ref>Bell, J.J., Davy, S.K., Jones, T., Taylor, M.W. and Webster, N.S., 2013. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.12212 Could some coral reefs become sponge reefs as our climate changes?]. Global change biology, 19(9), pp.2613-2624.</ref>
==References==
{{Reflist}}
| |||