Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of space stations/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 19:29, 4 August 2012 [1].

List of space stations

Featured list candidates/List of space stations/archive1

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I took this list and split it out of space station, and now I feel that it's expanded enough to be come a featured list. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that immediately spring to mind:
- The list uses flags, and flags alone, to say what country the station belongs to. This is insufficient.
  - Done - I've added columns to all the tables containing country data. I also linked country names the first time they appear. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You similarly cannot rely on color alone to denote the ones that were unmanned, you have to indicate it also either with text or with a symbol.
  - Done - I've added a notation under the "Occupied", "Total Crew and Visitors", and "Manned" columns saying that this station was never manned. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "DOS"? Why isn't it linked? Is it the Salyut program? Almaz also needs to be linked. Being linked in earlier text doesn't mean it can be skipped for a table.
  - Done - I added a notation above describing the difference between the two programs. The DOS program has no article yet, that's why I can't link it. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do only some of the launches have times? Are the :00 seconds real or just false precision? For example, your source for the time for Salyut 1 says only that it launched at 1:40 UTC, not 1:40:00. I'm not sure we need the times anyway, that's perhaps a little specific for this list.
  - Done - I've removed the times. They were too much detail, and I didn't have sources for all of them. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Inconsistent use of commas for days in orbit between tables.
  - Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tiangong 1 is in a table labelled "orbiting and manned", yet has never actually been manned.
  - Done - I've changed the description above the table to be more clear. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Under cancelled projects, you give the same reason for cancellation in three different ways. This could be moved into the text and that column removed.
  - Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When the flag is replaced with a country, that should get its own column.
  - Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need the See Also section - Salyut and Skylab should be linked in the article itself, and 'space station' is literally the first link.
  - Done - I removed the unnecessary links, and converted the portal links to plain text links. I only have the portal links there now. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above needs to be cleaned up. --Golbez (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments! Please let me know if there's any further changes you think I need. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments some quick things.

Avoid bold links in the lead, per WP:CONTEXTLINK.
- Done - removed ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Skylab not in italics while Mir is? They're both names of space stations, right?
- Done - I've italicized every station, as I'm assuming they're treated as ships in WP:ITALICS. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need four paras in the lead for an article of this length per WP:LEAD. Perhaps move the last para to above the table.
- Maybe done - I tried to change things around, I hope it's satisfactory. If that doesn't work, I can trim the leade some. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"for greater number and length of scientific studies " this reads very awkwardly to me, perhaps ask for a copyedit.
- Done - Split into two sentences. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't overlink Almaz in the lead.
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Skylab viewed from the command module of Skylab 2." no need for the full stop in this caption as it's not a complete sentence.
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ACCESS, " Stations with a red background were never manned." needs a symbol (e.g. an asterisk, or †) as well as the colour to denote a particular property.
- Done - added a ‡ as a symbol. Also, I added a key instead of text, this should make things clearer. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Soviet Union had two programs running simultaneously" -> "The Soviet Union ran two programs simultaneously"
- Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check with User:RexxS that the table works well with screen readers (per WP:ACCESS). It certainly doesn't comply with MOS:DTT for row and col scopes as far as I can tell.
- Maybe done - I fixed the MOS:DTT issues, hopefully. Could you please look it over and make sure. Honestly, this is the first time I've encountered this MOS page. I've also pinged RexxS, hopefully he'll be back to me soon. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" They have Life support systems in place and can be manned." Life -> life. And I would think "can be manned" is obvious from the lead that these are designed to be manned.
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why have Country as (Private)? Just remove the column and say in the intro that both are privately owned/operated or whatever.
- Done - removed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, if you insist on (Private) then be consistent, the following table has (private).
- Done - removed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"An image of the interior of Skylab B, on display at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum." no full stop required.
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"(In orbit 40 days)" but it said it was cancelled, so it was cancelled after it was launched? Make this clearer and cite the 40 days of orbit.
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does "--" mean for Planned Crew size (and why is Crew capitalised here?)
- Done - explained more clearly, hopefully. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comments! Please let me know if you find anything else that can be done. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Rather than having a single sentence below the table of contents I would add it to the end of the last para
- Done Those two sentences will be the death of me :) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a query, but is there not one single ref you can use for each space station ,in stead of using multiple refs to source each column, no worries if not, but it would make the table look neater if there were.
- Not done - I'm sorry, that's not possible. Most of this information is very scattered, especially the Soviet stuff. So each piece of information must have it's own citations. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Main issue I have is with the referencing, there a few errors:
ref 1 needs the publication date adding
- Done - fixed ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref 4 has no publisher, and what makes it a reliable source?
- Done - It's a science teacher's association. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref 7, the hyphen needs to be an end ash, there other instances of this, so I would check all the refs to make sure they use en dashes
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref 9 has astronautix.com used twice, any reason for this?
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref 13 is not formatted correctly, there needs to be an isbn number, a publisher and is there an author?
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref 9 has astronautix.com yet ref 16 uses encyclopaedia astronautic, which one is it? be consistent
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref 18 needs the parameter |format=PDF adding to it, likewise for any other refs that are PDFs
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what makes space facts.de, planet 4589 a reliable source?
- All of the information in spacefacts is sourced, just not on the actual pages. Planet4589 is Jonathan's report. Jonathan publishes the logs of missions, I've seen him mentioned in other sources. If you'd like me to find other sources, I can. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref 50 has no publisher. likewise ref 51, and not sure what makes either of those sites reliable
- Done - I added new sources. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref 69 needs the author adding
- Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref 94, the guardian needs to use the parameter |work as it is a publication
- Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed everything. Please feel free to let me know if there's anything else you think should be done. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is one of the most interesting pages I've read on WP--great job!

Why, thank you. :) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Notes section should appear before References.

Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons cat should go in "External links". And since it is the only link, you should use the inline variant.

Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: these 2 are completely optional and should not impact this list being promoted:

Lots of white space next to the ISS patch image. Don't know if anything can be done...

Not done - I'm sorry, I can't figure out any way to fix that. You're welcome to have a go. 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What about adding citations to the "(private)" occurences and adding the company names to the "Notes" section?

Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Lionel ^(talk) 01:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it took so long for me to get back, Internet has been iffy. I'll try to fix the optional ones later, depending on the Internet. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've handled the optional comments. Thank you for the review. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFC

Resolved comments from WFC

*First thing's first, thanks for working on this list. I looked through FLC to find something relatively unique to review, and this was one of the ones that caught my eye. —WFC— 04:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I'm glad you enjoyed it. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the notes in an attempt to provide clarity: the days in orbit statistic updates automatically (so will always be correct as of today's date), whereas the other stats update manually (so will be correct as of the last update). —WFC— 04:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, thank you. You taught me some stuff about references I didn't know existed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two paragraphs of the lead are good, but the prose could use some work in places:
- I think there should be a brief mention in the lead that Russia, China and private companies are planning future space stations, and a paragraph in the planned stations section which goes into a bit more detail. —WFC— 04:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - added. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- "The last military-use space station was Salyut 5, which was used by the Almaz program of the Soviet Union in 1976 and 1977." Firstly, I think other landmarks should be mentioned, such as the first space station, first civilian/military space station (depending on whether the first was military/civilian) and so on, although obviously care needs to be taken to try and keep the prose flowing nicely. But also, I'm not sure if this quote is accurate: I remember reading a few months back that China's space program, whilst being conducted for the purposes of civilian research, is overseen by the People's Liberation Army (that was a Western source though, so may have been inaccurate). Either way, I think "firsts" are more relevant than "lasts" as far as military and civilian usage are concerned. —WFC— 04:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - fixed. I've expanded that paragraph with some additional information. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for now. I'll take another look at the prose when these things are resolved.

Thank you, I await your further comments. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to return to this: apart from a brief AWB run yesterday, my activity has been patchy this month for religious reasons.

I have a lot of time for this list. The lead is absolutely perfect for a layman, and the tables go into what looks like an appropriate amount level of detail. But I think this is the sort of list where some transitional text is needed (or in plain English, longer, more detailed text in some of the sections). I don't have enough expertise to give you an exhaustive guide, but will give a couple of examples:

1. I read through the text to see how much of it covered what a space station is actually for (either in general, or a specific space station). In total, we have:

"Space stations are used to study the effects of long-term space flight on the human body. They also serve as a platform for extended scientific studies. ... Space stations have been used for both military and civilian purposes" in the lead, and in the body: "The Long Duration Orbital Station (DOS) program was intended for scientific research into spaceflight. The Almaz program was a secret military program that tested space reconnaissance tactics."

2. I read through the text to see how much of it covered what could be described as unique, defining or current characteristics of specific space stations, in the broadest possible sense. In total, there is:

"As of 2012, the International Space Station and Tiangong 1 are the only manned space stations currently in orbit. ... The duration record for a single spaceflight is 437.7 days, set by Valeriy Polyakov aboard Mir from 1994 to 1995. As of 2012, three astronauts have completed single missions of over a year, all aboard Mir", plus the first line of each section.

The lead is perfect: both of the topics I mention are sufficiently touched upon. But for a subject of this depth, technicality and variety I believe that the sub-sections should go into more specific detail about the stations. I'm afraid I don't have enough technical expertise to give you a clearer steer, but it just feels to me that an "expert" (or perhaps more appropriately, someone wanting to use this list as a gateway to learning about space stations), would be found wanting. Regrettably, for that reason I have to oppose at the moment. —WFC— 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... OK. Thank you for your kind words. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from W. D. Graham

There have been quite a lot of proposed space stations over the years which never made it to orbit, however only three are listed
- I'm going based off the {{space stations}}, that's where I got the data. However, I've added the ISS incorporated stations into that table. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Completeness is one of the featured list criteria. I feel further research is needed if this list is to become featured. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you feel further research is necesary, of course I can spend some time researching. However, many countries are very secretive about their space failures, so I'm not sure how much I can find. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list seems to claim that "rising costs" was the cause of every cancelled programme being cancelled; this is incorrect, and not even cited for the examples given
- Done - fixed. I've added an extra column and included references. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A general remarks column might be better --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I've converted the title to remarks, and updated the data accordingly. Does that work? ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ESA and Bigelow Aerospace are not countries
- Done - Fixed. I've converted the column to "Agency" and included the flags and then the agency name. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure commercial organisations such as Bigelow could be classed as agencies either. The USSR certainly isn't an agency. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that "agency" doesn't quite get it. How 'bout "entity", "owner", or maybe "country or entity". Other ideas are welcome, of course. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I converted "agency" to "entity". ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the stations listed as "de-orbited" [sic] were not deorbited; DOS-2 was never in orbit, and Skylab, Saylut 2, Kosmos 557 and Salyut 7 decayed naturally
- I changed the section heading. If you think of a better heading, please feel free to change it. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be made clear that the three failed stations were intended to be manned
- Done - added as a note. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soyuz 10 seems to be counted in manned visits to Salyut 1, but not in terms of crew. This should be corrected, or it should be made clear that you are counting the docking failure as a "visit"
- Done - fixed. Oops. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, how does the list define a "visit"? How are docking failures listed? How about launch failures? And is Soyuz T-5 listed as having visited Mir once or twice?
- Docking failures are still visits. I defined that in the Salyut 1 row. Yes, docking failures are listed unless I missed one. Launch failures aren't. Soyuz T-5 is listed as having visited Mir twice. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that made clear in the article? --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Unmanned" should not be hyphenated
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the way the table is split between past and current space stations, it makes the second table very short, and messes up the column widths. Could they be merged into a single table, perhaps with the active stations differentiated using a different background colour, or separated by a row in the table.
- I'd rather not combine the two tables, as there are columns that apply to one and not the other. If things continue to go the way they're going, we'll have more rows in that table very soon. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand why the programme field is only in one of the tables, and that just leaves decay date. If you switch to a short date format (YYYY-MM-DD), that should save enough space to add it to both. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the crew sizes seem to include visiting crew (eg. Mir & Salyut 7) whilst others don't (eg. ISS & Salyut 6)
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Durable Orbital Station" is a mistranslation, it should be "Long Duration Orbital Station"
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOL was never launched; the 1966 launch was a mockup built using parts taken from Titan missiles. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified in the text. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a very good list, however it does still need some work to meet featured list criteria --W. D. Graham 22:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've addressed some of the concerns, but I have to log off now (real life calls). I'll be back later to address the other concerns. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)~~ I've addressed all of the concerns now. Please let me know if you think of anything else. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Craigboy

Shouldn't NSPO be replaced with CNSA?--Craigboy (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mir's mass is currently listed as 19,800 kg but it should be 129,700 kg.--Craigboy (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed - I found a new source. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wingtipvortex

"As of 2012, the International Space Station and Tiangong 1 are the only manned space stations currently in orbit." I don't like the sentence 100%. The Tiangong is not currently manned. It has been, and it likely will be again. Or maybe it is not currently crewed... Thoughts on that?
- Fixed - How about "operational stations currently in orbit"?
"As of 2012, three astronauts have completed single missions of over a year, all aboard Mir." I think it would be very useful if 'three astronauts' linked to who the 3 astronauts were. Also, if they were all aboard Mir, wouldn't they be cosmonauts? Maybe not, I'm not well-informed about the Shuttle-Mir program.
- Fixed - I've linked the names. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe also include a number of astronauts that have been to several stations and which ones. Dunno, just throwing that out there.
- I don't think that I could include that on this list. However, I might make that into its own list. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, a little extra commentary wouldn't hurt, but maybe I'm just thinking too much 'article' and not enough 'list'
- Fixed - I trimmed the leade some. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Space stations that have re-entered the atmosphere" may be a bit too long for a section title. How about decommissioned stations or past stations? You explain prior to the list that they have re-entered.
- Done - I've changed the section title. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I Support the list becoming featured once the above are addressed. It has a great intro, good images, the lists are well split up and contain good and useful information (who would have thought to find useful information in an encyclopedia :D ) and is very clean (no clutter). --19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Wingtipvorte^X (talk) Ø
- Thanks, I'm glad you found the list useful. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: The timeline of space stations found in the Space Station article may have a place in the list of space stations. Just a thought. --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) Ø 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the timeline to the article, it's a great idea. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~The hyphen pairs in the first table should be changed into some form of dashes.~~
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorting in the last two columns is odd at the moment, and not in numerical order. Sort templates exist and can likely fix the issue.~~
- Done - fixed. Sort templates applied. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 77 and 99 should be moved outside the parenthesis marks.
- Done - fixed ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Current ref 98 still has this issue. It looks like the other one is fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops, appearently it didn't save. I've fixed it for real this time. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - In fixing this, you accidentally removed the parenthesis. It should be there, just with the citation outside of it. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        *sigh* I hope i've fixed it for real this time... ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Planned stations: En dash needed for the Tiangong 3 date range.~~
- Done - fixed ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Publisher of ref 1 shouldn't be in italics since it isn't a printed publication.~~
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Capitalization of Wired Magazine should be made consistent, likely with the capitalization.~~
- Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page number would be nice for ref 13.
- Note that this is now ref 12. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done - I've replace it with another ref, as I can't get access to that book again. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Publisher needed for ref 7. And what makes someone's personal page a reliable source?~~
- Removed, I must have been asleep when I put it in. I've replaced it with a couple book sources. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Gunter's Space Page (ref 52) reliable? This also looks like somebody's personal site.
- Removed, it isn't a reliable source. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still see it as ref 52. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Replaced with a book source. I made sure of it ;) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 10, 24, 54, 60, 96, and 99 should have their publishers italicized as printed publications.
- Done - I think I got all of them. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Numbers 96 and 99 still need the italics. You did get the others, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done - got 'em. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 07:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Encyclopedia Astronautica (many refs) reliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The jury appears to still be out on Encyclopedia Astronautica. This discussuion and this one appears to establish it as a reliable source, but other discussions have questioned that view. I believe it's reliable for facts because it provides a biography and I'm only citing facts. If you'd like, I can remove it and replace it with other sources. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll leave it out for other reviewers to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm sorry, my internet has been iffy. I'll continue addressing concerns and update the article accordingly. Thanks for your patience. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

OK, I think I've hit all your concerns, feel free to make any further comments. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: No copyright related problems found. Good raise 01:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesomeness, thank you! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.