Template:Did you know nominations/Atmospheric correction for interferometric synthetic aperture radar technique

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: rejected by 97198 (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Atmospheric correction for interferometric synthetic aperture radar technique

• ... that atmospheric corrections are needed when synthetic-aperture radar is used?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Exotic and Unusual Fishes of North America

Moved to mainspace by Mhmnia11 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 11:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - highly debatable; the first three sources I looked at are close to unusable, and I would be greatly surprised if they were the only three:
  • The first source, Radar Interferometry, used for quite a few (10!) citations, is a book of 308 pages! It is not reasonable to just link to a book of that size without page numbers as a reference for a specific fact, we need the specific page number or at worst a short range of page numbers, please.
  • The second source is a copy of the first. Combine, please.
  • The fifth source, InSARMeteorologyMiami2018, is a website that has basically no information on the page linked to. Presumably the information is to be found somewhere on the website? Be specific please. Also it seems to be a WorldPress website that is hitting an edit filter as I try to write about it here. Are you very sure it's a reliable source?
• Neutral
  : - not really; the article seems to be written from a point of view of endorsing the technique, and directly addressing its users or potential users, rather than a neutral, critical appraisal. There several examples below but there are more that can be easily found
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - not really. I mean, I guess the hook is kind of restating the whole point of the article, but I don't see a specific citation for it
• Interesting: - again, not really. Again, this is the whole point of the article, but it fails to pique the curiosity. Either the reader is already interested in the technique just from the article title, or not, but the hook does nothing except restate the article title.

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed
  : - no, up for deletion
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

Overall: This article is among the oldest in DYK that has not had at least a start at a review, and I think I understand why: it's quite difficult to read. I'm sure prospective reviewers take one glance and move on to something easy, like ancient Etruscan history. Ideally this needs a review by SAR expert, but they're few and far between at DYK. I am a mere computer programmer, but did actually work on a SAR-adjacent project for a couple of years in my career, so I think while I'm not going to be good, I am going to be as good as the next person.

• The article has two maintenance tags that could be cleared up. (
  Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide
  specifically says the orphan tag isn't a blocking problem, and honestly I'm not sure that the lead really is too long relative to the rest of the article, but do ask the person who placed it, and figure it out please.)
• The article desperately needs a good copy edit. For example, I've got multiple nits to pick with the very first sentence!
  • The very first two words are "Atmospheric Correction", but the title is "Atmospheric correction". Does the C need capitalization or not?
  • "Atmospheric Correction for Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) technique is a set of different methods..." - Maybe insert a The, so "The Atmospheric correction ... technique is a set of ..."?
  • Bold the title of the article,
    MOS:BOLDLEAD
    . "The Atmospheric correction technique ..."

Yet more

• • Randomly capitalized words, "from an Interferogram"; "atmospheric research in Meteorology because"; "the Ionospheric noise artifact"; "measurements are Satellite-based observations"; "integration of zenithal path on the grid points of Pressure, Temperature and relative humidity", etc.
  • Random font changes: underlined, bolded and italicized Limitations; random boldings in the Variables of ERA5 data table; at least three different font variations in the "Available packages for atmospheric correction" section for no obvious reason
  • In fact, what's the point of the Variables of ERA5 data table? What is the reader to make of the information that ozone_mass_mixing_ratio is o3 while specific_snow_water_content is cswc? That doesn't seem to be explained anywhere.
  • Multiple instructions to (click on the link ) in the "Available packages for atmospheric correction" section. We don't do that, we include links in the "External links" section with a brief description, we don't include instructions to the reader in the article body.
  • Misspellings: propagationtion ; artifact or artefact (pick one - or are these different?)
  • "In terms of Meteorology, tropospheric delay interestingly can be regarded as a useful tool for Meteorology purposes." - The words "interestingly" should be removed as not an opinion we should express in Wikipedia's voice, what does "can be regarded" mean - by whom?, Metereology twice is redundant...
  • More about misuse of Wikipedia's voice: "unwrapping and geometry errors should be considered to reach a trustable result" - we don't give our readers instructions like "should", and what does "trustable" mean?
  • "There are several methods to remove all these noises until a reasonable and acceptable amount except atmospheric effects with high accuracy." - What does that mean? Are there words missing?
  • File:Reflection0010013s.tif is also up for deletion, also File:Ppt file Seminar 28.jpg, File:Teneaw.jpg. I didn't check the others, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are others.
    • In any case, what does the file name Teneaw mean? The others are only slightly better in terms of meaningfulness.
  • "Overall, the tropospheric error on interferogram can be classified into space and time:" is followed by a mysterious table that does not define its terms very well. What is vertical stratification, for example? Throughout the article multiple technical terms are used without being defined

I'm stopping here not because I've exhausted the issues, but just because I've exhausted myself. I've tried to read the article for three days now and it's defeated me; despite my best efforts trying to understand it I now understand no more about the technique than I did when I read the title. I'm going to mark this as a "maybe" since nothing here is theoretically unfixable, but there is so much work required to make this into a neutral and comprehensible encyclopedia article that without what amounts to a complete rewrite, this is close to a "no". I'm sorry. GRuban (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• The maintenance tags remain and no significant changes have been made to the article after the review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)