Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hubble Space Telescope

Hubble Space Telescope

The thought of trying to analyse under-exposed STIS spectra still gives me the horrors, but apart from that, I like the Hubble Space Telescope. This article was previously featured, then demoted. I've worked on getting it back to featurable, with help from peer review, and I think it's now time to give it a run past FAC. I realise it's very long (50kb); thoughts on whether it needs to be split most welcome. Worldtraveller 11:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support, Yes, it's lengthy but it is comprehensive and has lots of relevant images. As far as I can tell it's impossible to split this up without mangling the brilliant prose (summaries would - intentional or not - leave out important details). - Mgm|^(talk) 17:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The References seem to be partly broken for me; some of the links don't work, and the numbers in the text do not match those in the Reference section, which makes them useless if the document is printed. Once this is fixed, I will support (yes, I have thoroughly read the article; Worldtraveller pointed me to it some time ago, and I was about to suggest he nominate it here anyway). Phils 18:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support. Phils 29 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment - I checked all the links and they all seem to work for me. As for the numbers in the text matching the refs, this is a bit of a tricky one to fix because I've quoted several times from a couple of my references. I can make all the numbers match but then it won't update automatically if things are switched around; or I can remove the numbers from the refs section - then there's no disparity between the superscripts and the reference numbers, but it's still no good for a printed article. Any ideas on how to improve this?

• Support, long but comprehensive article. One of the best complete summaries of the telescope. Phoenix2 20:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. As I wrote in PR, I'd support it a week ago. One note: you still have room to add several nice images without cluttering the text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This is an amazingly complete and well-organized article, however, I think the lead paragraph needs a bit of work in that there's no defninition -- we assert that the telescope is important without actually stating what it is (eg. something like "[The HST is] the only permanent orbiting telescope ever put into service and . . . "). Assuming this is fixed, I would support FA status. Jgm 04:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Adjusted the lead section, hope I've addressed this now. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)

• Support as per Jgm. However, section 8.3's header should probably be changed from a question to a statement and I agree with Jgm that the introduction needs to be clearer on what the telescope is. Ben Babcock 05:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Changed the section title as suggested. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)

• Oppose, but only because of references. The references section should be split off the notes section, and the inline links, for instance [1] should be converted into Template:Ref and Template:Note. Until this is done, I can't support (though the content is great!) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)#

• Have to say I'm not sure I agree with making inline external links into refs and notes, as there would be one more click between the reader and the external link. What would the advantages be? Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Whilst I think the article previously had too large a section on future space telescopes, as noted on peer review, now that the whole section has been removed some important information is now missing. For example:

Space telescopes are still essential for observing wavelengths which are absorbed in the atmosphere. In particular, Hubble has been increasingly used for observations of the near-ultraviolet wavelength range, for which no new telescopes are currently planned.

If information about Hubble's current usage due to it's strengths over current and proposed land-based and space telescopes were included I'd be happy to support. Other than that it's a great article, though I think the Conception, design and aims section could easily spawn a daughter article and be trimmed. CheekyMonkey 10:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added a bit explaining more about Hubble's unique advantages in the section about the final serving mission, hope that covers everything you think it should. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)

You say "its successor telescope will not be launched until possibly several years after Hubble's demise". I presume you mean successor as in the next telescope to perform observations of near-ultraviolet wavelengths and not as in the successor to the Hubble (i.e. the James Webb Telescope which the original statement in the future space telescopes section seemed to suggest wouldn't perfom observations at this wavelength). Can you please clarify? CheekyMonkey 29 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)

• Support Vuvar1 20:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article was featured on the main page in March 2, 2004 so when this article is repromoted it should be marked as already featured. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: As noted this article was once featured, and was demoted. Of note is the Wikipedia:Former featured articles page, a concise listing of formerly featured articles, and a page worth noting in regards to the trejectory a FA can take. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 00:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but please remove the external link references and replace them with footnote references. - Cedars 29 June 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! I'm not sure, though, about converting inline external links to footnotes - it would mean readers have to click twice to reach the external link rather than just once, and I can't see what advantage it brings. Will be glad to convert it if it's generally seen as desirable though. Worldtraveller 29 June 2005 11:42 (UTC)

• SupportI can't think there is a lot more to say on this subject about which I formerly knew nothing. I'm not too sure about the current epidemic for footnote everywhere! Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:24 (UTC)