Jump to content

Talk:Space Launch System/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CactiStaccingCrane (talk · contribs) 02:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hello, I'm CactiStaccingCrane (talk), and I gonna take a look at the article! Sent at 02:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaDizzy @Arch dude main contributors to the article CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the article's talk page

[edit]
  • Captions must be succulent. NASA moved out US$889 million of costs relating to SLS boosters, but did not update the SLS budget to match, a March 2020 Inspector General report found. This kept the budget overrun to 15% by FY 2019. At 30%, NASA would have to notify Congress and stop funding unless Congress reapproves and provides additional funding. The Inspector General report found that were it not for this "masking" of cost, the overrun would be 33% by FY 2019. The GAO separately stated "NASA's current approach for reporting cost growth misrepresents the cost performance of the program". is just way too long. The maximum length is about 3-4 lines of text, and no more.
 Done Has been addressed. Special:Diff/1048452526 Leijurv (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 70 t (69 long tons; 77 short tons) should be converted to 70 metric/imperial ton (... lb) since practically no one use long and short tons, and ambiguous. (imperial or metric?)
I believe DeltaDizzy may have already done this in Special:Diff/1048448938? Leijurv (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, yup CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Lead should be shorter. It should be from 2-3 paragraphs and be capitating to the reader.
 Done DeltaDizzy (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Originally done in Special:Diff/1048464798, I redid the edit due to reference issues in Special:Diff/1048466690 (no text was changed, I just moved the references in, the visual editor seemed to have duplicated them weirdly) Leijurv (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Block 1: Core stage, 5-segment SRBs, ICPS 2nd stage. [...] should be converted to prose, and remove bolding.
This was done by DeltaDizzy in Special:Diff/1048454466 Leijurv (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Replace / for or.
 Done Special:Diff/1048464322 Leijurv (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, convert lists to prose, such as Costs of payloads for the SLS (such as Orion crew capsule) [...]
 Done Special:Diff/1048459722 Leijurv (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be specfic. [...] an alternative to be designed and fabricated by the company, but it was rejected by NASA in November 2019 on multiple grounds. What alternative? Why is it rejected?
I'm confused by this one. For SLS payloads, Orion is the only one that we know of. NASA might launch further payloads on SLS in the future, but currently, the only planned ones are Artemis 1 through 3 which are Orion. (all that is said elsewhere in the article). So I'm not sure how that could be more specific. And for the second one, Strikethrough because I simply misunderstood where one suggestion ended and the next began, oops What alternative? Why is it rejected?, look at the next sentence of the article rejected by NASA in November 2019 on multiple grounds. These included lower performance compared to the existing EUS design, unsuitability of the proposal to current ground infrastructure, and unacceptable acceleration in regards to Orion components.. This is a summary of the secondary source [1] which goes into more specifics, such as instead of unsuitability of the proposal to current ground infrastructure it actually says the total height of the SLS rocket's core stage with Blue Origin's upper stage exceeds the height of the Vertical Assembly Building's door, resulting in "modifications to the VAB building height and substantial cost and schedule delays.". If it doesn't fit in the VAB that's a big issue. I will edit the two sentences so that they flow better and make more sense. Leijurv (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1048457845 Leijurv (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the article for redundant dashes. 140- to 150-tonne should be 140 to 150 (metric/imperial) ton. This unit would also benefit from {{cvt}} template as well.
 Done I searched the article for dash and read through all of them, I believe I have addressed them all in Special:Diff/1048485184. Leijurv (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is way too tiring to read: The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times: originally from late 2016 to October 2017, then to November 2018, then to 2019, then to June 2020, then to April 2021, then to November 2021, and then to some time between January 2022 and March 2022. It should be simplified, and consider worth including. The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times: late 2016, October 2017, November 2018, 2019, June 2020, April 2021, November 2021, and then to some time between January 2022 and March 2022. and The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times, and as of October 2021 the launch date is between January 2022 and March 2022. is a good alternative in my opinion.
 Done Special:Diff/1048469975 Leijurv (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General prose issues

[edit]
  • Resilience section should be merged. Lone sentences should be merged as well. The level 3 sections (2.3.1.) should be deleted, as it is way too overkill. Merge the subject to a paragraph.
 Done by me, Cacti.
Diff was Special:Diff/1048461130 Leijurv (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many cleanup tags need to be addressed.
 Done Special:Diff/1048643057 Special:Diff/1048645261 Special:Diff/1048645462 Special:Diff/1048648318 I believe that's all of them (how do you search for all cleanup tags other than just looking with your eyes???), except for one in the Budget section, see Special:PermanentLink/1048649479#Budget question, which DeltaDizzy might hopefully clarify soon. Leijurv (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done (just wanted to tag this as not done, still pending resolution of Special:Diff/1048773333) Leijurv (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Resolved through this series of edits. Leijurv (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with and comprise using sth more specfic, such as compose, and, rephrasing or even omit it.
I'm not sure we should remove with. It's a good word, did nothing wrong. I don't see comprise. Leijurv (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, guess that it is my mistake then.  Done
  • Words such as a total of, the ability to, sort of, in agreement with and to date are highly dicouraged.
I don't see a total of.  Done Reworded the ability to in Special:Diff/1048471032. I don't see in agreement with. sort of is in a quote. I don't see to date. Leijurv (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use NPOV language, and replace urged, voiced with something more neutral.
 Done Special:Diff/1048463143 Leijurv (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infographic from the March 2020 Inspector General report, demonstrating how NASA used accounting to "mask" a cost increase by moving US$889M of boosters from SLS to another cost center, while neglecting to update the SLS budget to match. is way way too POV pushing.
 Done Special:Diff/1048462992 Leijurv (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of sentences have an unnecessary details, such as Ars Technica, in an article published on the same day, highlighted that over the entire RS-25 contract the price of each engine works out to US$146 million and that the total price for the four expendable engines used in each SLS launch will be more than US$580 million.
 Done Special:Diff/1049150589 Leijurv (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, a lot of acronyms can be expanded, such as TLI for trans-lunar injection.
 Done Too many diffs to link because I hit save on each one :) But I read through a few times and removed all acronyms that were only ever used in expanded form, and linked or expanded the rest. I believe the acronym situation is now Acceptable. Leijurv (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be a bit too demanding, but incorperating criticisms to the develop history would be epic
Oh god... I don't know if that would make conceptual sense. I struggle to imagine a way to do that cleanly, I'm not sure that would be better than what we have now. Leijurv (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can cut down some criticisms, and paraphrase it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
 Done Special:Diff/1048643185 Special:Diff/1049150589 Leijurv (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1048638014 Leijurv (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (suggestion from Discord) We have a lot written about the construction history of the first SLS, for Artemis 1. We should also write similar sections for the other ones being built. Artemis 2 had a forward join very recently and the spray-on orange foam is being applied. Artemis 3's main liquid hydrogen tank is assembled. And we should also write about Artemis 4 through whatever and all the contracts that have been signed for future parts ordered. Leijurv (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should we seperate it to a new article that talks about SLS history? It's starting to get a bit unwieldy CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, if it doesn't work well in this article I think it should instead go into each mission's page. Artemis 1 basically already has this with its table of stacking progress and such. Leijurv (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1049327331 Wrote a paragraph about it and added three images. I wasn't able to find a source or image on the Artemis 3 LH2 though. Leijurv (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, asked in the Artemis Discord and got a source Special:Diff/1049329420. Leijurv (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although, I still think it would be good to get more than just that one source [2] for construction progress of artemis 2 through 4. Leijurv (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could reference the occasional NASA press releases when a major milestone occurs or the addition of images(and their captions) to images.nasa.gov when a (usually more minor) milestone is achieved? DeltaDizzy (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (suggestion from Discord) A section on potential applications beyond Artemis. We already have some sources cited for this (e.g. we already cite [3] and [4]), we just should write about them, what SLS brings to the table, etc. For example we could write about how SLS would have made Europa Clipper get to its destination faster (even though it could not be done due to the vibration issues). Some others are Luvoir, Lynx, Europa Lander, Interstellar probe, Persephone, Neptune Odyssey. Leijurv (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources that I've found that could be used: Neptune Odyssey [5], Persephone [6], Luvoir [7] [8] [9] [10], Lynx mostly the same as Luvoir, Europa Lander just take sources from Europa Lander, Interstellar probe [11]. Leijurv (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1049670044 Leijurv (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1049155186 Leijurv (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of blocks, we might want to mentions all of the changes in the block graphics to prose, for assesibility and MOS compliance. You might wabt to scrool up in Wikimedia discord. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my typos, I don't have autocorrect on lol CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1049677654 Leijurv (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Special:Diff/1049678437 Leijurv (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA criteria: there are some things mentioned in the lede (such as deep space exploration) that are not mentioned elsewhere in the body. Although perhaps this would be fixed by talking about the interstellar probe ^^^ Leijurv (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is a potential use for SLS to be sustainable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this was  Done by my above edit talking about SLS use cases, such as the interstellar probe: Special:Diff/1049670044 Leijurv (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right on cue, CRS-20 added more of them just now, to the new images I added to the article: Special:Diff/1049655715 and Special:Diff/1049663316. Lol. Leijurv (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1049673584 Leijurv (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That section that you've linked is already prose. Did you mean #Variants instead of #Upper stages? The table is just an aid to explanation that is already in prose. The numbers for payload can also be found in the infobox. Leijurv (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done What information specifically is only in the table, and cannot be found elsewhere? There's nothing wrong with tables lol, such as the table down below for the planned future launches of SLS. Leijurv (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, sorry, did you mean the three exploded diagrams? Those used to be down in the gallery, they are not "load bearing" they're just visuals. Again I'm open to the idea but what specific bits of information are missing from prose? Leijurv (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean moving all the info inside the pics into prose. The pics are fine, but describe them in prose would be better. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What information specifically, please? Do you mean, like, naming all the little components and bits and bobs? For example, looking specifically at File:Block_1_70t_Crew_Expanded_View.jpg, the only thing I can see that belongs on this article (and not on Orion (spacecraft)) would be something like The core stage is attached to the ICPS using something called a "Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter", is that what you mean? I mean I suppose we could say that, but there's an unlimited pool of more and more technical detail we could go into of how it all fits together. At that point I would defer to WP:DUE and say that the components we should talk about are the components that WP:RS talk about. Leijurv (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, just cover differences between block in prose. Technical differences is gonna be a billion page long, so not that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the differences between blocks are already covered in prose. Unless there's something specific in those diagrams that you think should be in prose but isn't, I say  Done Leijurv (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bad example: (Although these savings may have included a portion of costs related to the delay in launch schedule; a commercial alternative could launch sooner than SLS)
 Done Special:Diff/1049337685 Leijurv (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

[edit]

No copyright violations

No non-free images

Reference OK

Media relevancy OK

No original research

Second opinion reason

[edit]

Hi, I am the reviewer, CactiStaccingCrane (talk). I have helped fixed a lot of small errors, as well as bigger ones such as organisation of the article. I am not exactly sure if the 4 (currently not assessed) criteria has been met, so I want someone with more experience to hit home with the review. For you, @Leijurv: you might want to take a look at the criteria and explain why article met them. In the meantime, I would continue review as much as I can. Good luck! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite ready yet to say that the article meets all criteria. I still need to rearrange some things, fix some acronyms (expand them, or remove them), etc. Of course, I will continue to go through the rest of the things you've mentioned, and of course if someone else wants to make specific suggestions that would be very welcome. Leijurv (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't review it, but I just want to mention that cleanup tags need to be addressed (sorry if it was discussed before): [altitude and inclination needed], US$2.257[inconsistent], the Exploration Upper Stage[inconsistent]. Artem.G (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem.G: May I ask how you located those cleanup tags? Is there a tool or gadget for it? Leijurv (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware about such a tool, I just look through the article and saw these tags. :) Artem.G (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: as a second opinion, I wanted to say that while the article can still be improved, in my view it currently meets all the criteria to be a GA. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For real??? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, let me check 1 more time CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing to other GAs, I think this is a good article. @Leijurv: @DeltaDizzy:, you officially got your first ! Long road ahead though, I think this article should aim for the stars! (pun intended) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System/GA1&oldid=1050014927"