Chang, Kenneth.
"NASA Spacecraft Closing In on Dwarf Planets Pluto and Ceres." The
New York Times.
The New York Times, 19 Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
I read Kenneth Chang’s article about NASA spacecraft which will be
exploring Pluto and Ceres, two dwarfed planets. The Article said that the spacecraft
visiting Ceres will be the first one to ever explore the dwarfed planet. NASA spaceship will take pictures from 7,800
miles away at a resolution of 70 meters per pixel. This is a better picture quality than the
Hubble telescope. The author says this
will reboot the debate over what a dwarfed planet should be. Since Pluto became
a dwarfed planet in 2006 the definition has been unclear. Dr. Stern of NASA
says “They really got it wrong,” about the I.A.U’s definition of a dwarfed
planet. The article goes on to say the
history of Ceres and that it was a rock and ice planet. Recently there have
been pictures of what looks like water vapor and the astronomers think that it
is caused by volcanic activity. The Author also writes about what the definition
of a planet should be according to Dr. Stern.
This article is important to the world because it shows that NASA could
potentially discover more on how our planet was formed and if humans can live
on the dwarfed planet of Ceres. It is also important because it provides insight
on what a planet can be defined as. The article is important because it will
show average people that the I.A.U need to clean up their operations. Finally
this article is important because it is important to explore the surroundings
of the Earth.
In this Article the author did a great job of including quotes. He includes
different opinions from different trustworthy sources and people. He also included many god numerical facts that
made the article better. The author did not do as good of a job on the flow of
the article, some of the paragraphs were choppy and some were confusing. I
found that some editing would make for a much better read. If I had written the
article I would have tried to shorten the paper. I found that some facts and
opinions were restated and the article took a long time to read. Overall, the
article had good content but could use a revision.
I read Spencer's review of the article, "NASA Spacecraft Closing In on Dwarf Planets Pluto and Ceres." I thought he did a really great jobs overall, but still could improve a couple of things. One thing that particularly stood out to me was how Spencer quoted the articles, whcih validated his statements and opinion. Spencer also related this back to our life in the US and even in Bronxville in such a way that was very clear and concise, but I could tell his response was thoughtful. Spencer also gave a detailed critique of the work and pointed out specific aspects that could have been edited by the author, which was great. However, I felt Spencer would have gone into a bit more depth in his summary. For example, he could have explained what the author writes about the definition of a planet, as I was curious about what criteria professionals like Dr Stern have set. Spencer should have also read over his work more carefully, as i noticed a couple errors such as capitalizing "author" in the middle of his sentence. Nevertheless, I learned a lot from Spencer's review and was surprised to hear that they found a substance that looks like water vapor on a planet.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading Spencer’s review on the article, “NASA Spacecraft Closing In on Dwarf Planets Pluto and Ceres.” I enjoyed this article particularly because he did three things very well. The first thing that he did well was that he chose a very interesting topic. The topic of NASA had always been of interest to me because I like space. Also, I never knew that NASA probes were so close to reaching huge asteroids, or dwarf planets. The planet they will be reaching in March is called Ceres, which is 600 mi wide! The second thing he did well was that he included so many details from the article such as when he says that “The spaceship will take pictures from 7800 miles away at a resolution of 70 meters per pixel, better than the hubble telescope,” In addition to this, he included several expert opinions about content about the article and bigger connections to the content in the article, such as what a dwarf planet is. The last thing that I though Spencer did well was that he was very concise about his review of the article which helped me understand what he was saying better. In addition to all the good, there were bad. He uses lots of repetition, for example, in the second paragraph, he uses “important” at the start of each sentence, and in all of the sentences in that paragraph. If this would be fixed it would bring his review to a whole new level. Finally another thing to improve on would be to expand on some of the content he mentions. For instance, Spencer mentions stuff about dwarf planets, and is talking about what people think a dwarf planet is, but he never includes what the expert, Dr. Stern, thinks a dwarf planet is, which was particularly confusing. Finally I took away one thing from this review/article, I found that NASA is working hard exploring asteroids in search for new information and life in space. What really caught my attention was that they had found water vapor caused by volcanic activity on Ceres, which was fascinating to me.
ReplyDelete