User:Robertinventor/Wikipedia mistakes or omissions

As I browse I notice mistakes and omissions in Wikipedia. Normally I'd just fix them or add a note to the talk page. Can't any more, since I'm indef blocked. This is to accompany my unblock appeal.

The list since I was blocked includes minor fixes I would normally do without first mentioning on the talk page. It doesn't cover the Buddhism or Mars astrobiology topic areas - for those I fix errors in our own wikis and would not fix them in Wikipedia.

Also goes back about a year for the ones I did before the block and ones that I suggested on the talk page but didn't do because I was blocked. Also includes some that I suggested and another editor said to do them, but I was blocked before I noticed.

Article is out of date
This is about a decade out of date. The closest gamma ray burst observed now is 140 million light years away, not the billions of light years away implied by "former epoch". There is now a lot of research based on nearby galaxies. I can help bring this article up to date on the topic.
 * event Tunguska event - new cite from workshop at review level, describing an emerging consensus.
 * 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
 * Betelgeuse Caption for image says this first attempt has resulted in the highest-resolution image of Betelgeuse available. - this is about a decade out of date. There is a higher resolution image from 2009 already in this paper.
 * Gamma-ray burst#GRB candidates in the Milky Way] "Knowledge of GRBs, however, is from metal-poor galaxies of former epochs of the universe's evolution, and it is impossible to directly extrapolate to encompass more evolved galaxies and stellar environments with a higher metallicity, such as the Milky Way."


 * Kevin Anderson (scientist) A bit out of date, more recent paper on his current views:


 * Blue Brain Project and Human Brain Project Several years out of date.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.


 * 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

Article has a significant mistake in it
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. 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.
 * 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 considering that evolutionary models predict these objects to be 1.0+/-0.2 times the radius of Jupiter i.e. 139,820 km +/-27,960 km
 * 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
 * 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"
 * Nuclear_winter Cites an article in New Scientist that doesn't seem to exist. and online post from 2002 that talks about increased UV not warming 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.
 * 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"
 * 2010_AU118 "NEODyS lists the nominal 20 October 2020 Earth distance as 3 AU (450,000,000 km; 280,000,000 mi).[7]" - table now says 2.6771 au in the Delta column

Article is missing information or needs more cites

 * Strange matter needs 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.
 * 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.


 * 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


 * 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
 * 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


 * 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.


 * 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%)"


 * History of SpaceX#Setbacks doesn't mention the first three rocket failures though it is covered in Falcon 1
 * 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"

Minor, or expect no discussion, would just fix on the spot

 * Vinnytsia - broken link
 * Phoenix Lights#Explanations Says "Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed high altitude lights flying in formation using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43x magnification." - 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..
 * 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.
 * High-voltage direct current#Advantages for "±800 kV  line  voltage,  losses are about 3% per 1,000 km" needs new cite:  - the linked to page has been trimmed down to a single paragraph and has nothing on it and the backup in archive.org doesn't mention the 3% figure.
 * 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, Error introduced with this diff
 * AT2018cow need to correct 29 September to 28 September
 * Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings add cite for "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–59. for:
 * "AIDA: Asteroid Impact and Deflection Assessment Mission Under Study at ESA and NASA" (PDF) broken url would fix by linking to Arxiv.org

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.

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 - should mention impact on Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia:Talk:Apparent_magnitude 31.5 seems a typo surely is 31.2
 * Wikipedia:Talk:Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse article is out of date
 * Wikipedia:Talk:Halton_Arp should say theory is out of date
 * Wikipedia:Talk:Steady_state_model - should mention the historical solution to Olber's paradox for the Steady State model.
 * Wikipedia:Talk:Paleoclimatology 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 - just missing info from article
 * Wikipedia:Talk:Apollo_Command/Service_Module Only half the module was painted white - caption incorrect
 * Wikipedia:Talk:Circumbinary_planet - diagram needs edited caption or redone to scale

Implemented fixes myself after talk page mention

 * Wikipedia:Talk:Lagrange_point_colonization
 * Wikipedia:Talk:List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events/Archives/2018/February
 * Wikipedia:Talk:WR_104

Other editor implemented suggested fix

 * Wikipedia:Talk:KIC_8462852

Edit proposal lead to discussion so far inconclusive

 * 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" - I think I'm a bit dyslexic, sometimes type a different word from the one I am thinking about. And what I was trying to say was that the history section should mention the effect of acidification on the composition of reefs, that when the oceans are more acidic then they are formed by the slower growing sponges rather than corals and this is relevant for the future of our own corals, that if the acidfication continues they are likely to eventually transform to sponge reefs, and supplied a cite that could be used for this.

Other editor reverted edit

 * 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 explaining the reason why I think it should be mentioned in the lede, which could then lead to discussion of the matter. Also I have some new cites, see.


 * 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:2012_(film) - 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
 * Wikipedia:Talk:Goldfish To mention popular belief about goldfish and that it is incorrect, with cites
 * Wikipedia:Talk:Great_Oxygenation_Event Should mention evidence for a mass extinction is not strong, with cites, similar edit for Wikipedia:Talk:Extinction_event

Mid discussion - would post another comment or add a new thread to the talk page

 * 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.
 * Wikipedia:Talk:KIC_8462852 suggested extra para in lede about latest research on Tabby's star.