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 Evrik (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The launch of the James Webb Space Telescope

• ... that the James Webb Space Telescope was meant to have enough fuel to stay in space for 10 years, but a successful launch saved so much fuel, that it may now have enough for 20 years? Source: ...10-year science lifetime. The minimum baseline for the mission is five years. and All hail the Ariane 5 rocket, which doubled the Webb telescope’s lifetime
  • ALT1: ... that the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope is credited for doubling the amount of time the telescope can maintain orbit? Source: ...10-year science lifetime. The minimum baseline for the mission is five years. and All hail the Ariane 5 rocket, which doubled the Webb telescope’s lifetime
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2022 National Arena League season
  • Comment: Thanks to @Ganesha811: for creating the article. Well done!

Created by Ganesha811 (talk). Nominated by Bruxton (talk) at 03:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - ALT0 is too wordy and ALT1 leaves some context to be desired. The latter should mention the amount of time and that the launch conditions were a factor.

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px: - Quality is not good, especially at thumbnail size.

Overall: Hook needs work. SounderBruce 23:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The picture is indeed of low quality (although I would argue that is less visible at 100px), but there are several alternatives on Flickr which aren't ported to Commons yet which might be suitable: [1], [2], [3], [4] or [5], all on the telescope's official Flickr account. As for the hook, how about

• ALT2: ... that the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope saved so much fuel that the telescope may be able to stay in space 10 years longer than planned?

Basically just a shortened original hook. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordPeterII: I am ok with the modified hook. Also if the image is not suitable we can go without it. The article has videos and animations and is quite interesting. Thanks for the review! Bruxton (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: I was mistaken, the images are on Commons already. I was so bold as to change the selection in the article, so the low res one pictured above is gone. I'd instead go with either of these two:

Would you be fine with either of these?

Also pinging @SounderBruce as the original reviewer to decide on ALT2. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordPeterII: Both are great images. Image one is quite impressive. Bruxton (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @SounderBruce to see if we can close this out with a tick. Bruxton (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT2 looks better but it's still awkwardly wordy. I'll recuse myself from the review to suggest the following
• ALT3 ... that the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope saved enough fuel to allow it to stay in space for an additional 10 years?

I also prefer the first of the new images, as it is much clearer than the zoomed-out shot. SounderBruce 22:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce and @LordPeterII: I can live with it, and I have crossed off the other. Please review and tick if either of you can when time permits. Bruxton (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Approving ALT3. I'm not perfectly happy with it because we don't know for sure that it will stay in place for 10 more years – other factors might reduce that time. But I think it's pretty clear that this is about fuel only, and everything, even the original planned duration, is an estimate. And we have "allows", which doesn't imply a guarantee. And for a more detailled explanation, you can, after all, read the article ^^

Actual review already done by SounderBruce. I have also exchanged the nomination picture to the one preferred by both SounderBruce and Bruxton, and approving that as well, if it isn't considered approved already. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: There are two places that are missing citations, which I have marked with citation needed tags. Can you replace the cn tags with a reference? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, another thing I missed... sorry. But it seems to have been fixed now, @Z1720. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce it was not much and quickly repaired. Thanks for the review! We have them cited now @Z1720: Bruxton (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are resolved, so readding tick per the above review. Z1720 (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]