Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 in spaceflight/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008 in spaceflight

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some suggestions on how to improve it, and others like it. I would be particularly interested in:

  • Ideas for what to put in the lead of the article
  • Comments on the general appearance, layout and content of the article
  • Suggestions for content that could be added to the article
  • Any way that images could be added to the article

Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment

My only real complaint is the size of the article; it sometimes takes quite long to load. A possible solution would to be move the missile test launches to a separate article. Another suggestion that I have is that the lead section should include some kind of concise definition of Spaceflight. Other than that, it's a great article. Offliner (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that length is a problem, but I have objections to any way of splitting it that I can think of. In the case of splitting off missile tests, I think that anything that results in two concurrent lists is confusing, and there would be some confusion in providing a suitable definition of "missile". --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to automated peer review

[edit]
The quoted text below was taken from the automated peer review page.


I agree that there should be a lead section, and one of the reasons that this review is being conducted is to get ideas for what to include in it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Due to the format of the article, the large number of links is necessary. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



I agree that some images are required, however it would be difficult to integrate them into the article in its current format. I am hoping that this review will give some clues as to how this can be achieved. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



This is a good idea, and I will look into it. Perhaps an image of one of the more significant events of the year. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



There is not currently a suitable infobox. It might be possible to make one, which could contain summary information on the year (eg. number of orbital launches, number of recorded sub-orbital launches, success rates, number of manned flights, etc.) If implemented correctly, it could complement the lead section when it is added. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



That is not a unit of measurement. It is a NASA flight designation, and part of the title of a webpage which was being cited. It would be inappropriate to change it, and this guideline does not apply to it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



As above. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



It is impossible to split the article without causing serious complications. See my response to one of the comments in the first section. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



The article is in British English, however several proper nouns for US organisations, projects, and places are used, (eg Kennedy Space Center and Missile Defense Agency) and it would be inappropriate to change them. The word "categorized" is part of a URL, so the issue with changing that is obvious. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It is usually best for someone who hasn't been one of the principal editors on a page to conduct this, as they might spot things that someone who has been working closely with the page for the last two years (such as myself) could have become used to, and hence missed. Would anyone like to volunteer? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Wronkiew

[edit]
  • The article needs a lead section. For content, I would take a look at some year in review articles and write a couple of paragraphs about the significant events. Just make sure everything in the lead is documented later in the article. Some examples:
    • Courtland, Rachel (28 December 2008). "2008: The year in spaceflight". NewScientist.
    • Moskowitz, Clara (24 December 2008). "2008: A Momentous Year in Spaceflight". Space.com.
    • Shiga, David (25 December 2008). "News review 2008: The year NASA's star began to wane". NewScientist.
    • Shiga, David (26 December 2008). "News review 2008: Asia's space race takes off". NewScientist.
  • I am unhappy about the width of the launch table. There are a couple ways you could go to improve this. One would be to collapse the table into a more complicated format like that seen in International Space Station. The other would be to keep the width, but make the table more interactive by adding sorting capabilities.
  • The size of the launch table makes it difficult to discern overall themes, which is important for a timeline article like this. You might consider splitting it up into multiple tables for sub-orbital, orbital, and interplanetary missions. Also maybe government and commercial.
  • I think you could do without launch times in the first column.
  • Some possible illustrations for the article could be pie charts showing launches by country or by purpose, and line charts comparing activity in space against previous years.
  • I wouldn't put more images in the already bloated table, but if you started the launch section with a paragraph or two talking about the more significant events, some launch photos could appear there. Same with the other sections. For the deep space section, obviously the 40th flyby of Titan doesn't need a photo, but a photo from MESSENGER or Phoenix would illustrate the significant events of the year.
  • Phrases shouldn't end with a period, but sentences should. This applies to tables as well. For an example of what not to do, see the 11 February spacewalk remark.
  • If you make all your tables sortable, you can use the dts template to correctly sort dates.
  • Encyclopedia Astronautica and JSR may not be reliable sources. I only mention this because I had trouble with these two at FAC.
  • The Baalke reference seems to have some extra characters in the note.
  • Some footnotes place the date in parentheses, while others have the date at the end, just before the accessdate. These should be consistent.
  • I would like to have seen a table just for human spaceflights in 2008, though I can see how this would be tricky. Perhaps a table of humans launched and humans returned. Or maybe just totals per country.
  • If this article gets too long, the launches table could be split out into a new article, and the summary could take its place.
  • Some launches may be non-notable, particularly if the only reference to them is in a database.
Response
[edit]

Thanks for the review. I like to reply to every point that is made, so I'll go over each one individually.

  1. As I have stated previously, I acknowledge the need for a lead section, and I'm sure the articles you have provided will be useful in creating one.
  2. I like the format used in the International Space Station article, and while I am not sure that it will work on this scale, I will look into it. With regard to sorting, I don't think the difficulty of ensuring that it works properly with the flag icons and multiple spacecraft names would justify the small benefit of being able to sort the list. I agree that table width is a problem.
  3. I feel that it is also important to keep timelines in chronological order, so I dislike any form of split that would take the timeline out of chronological order.
  4. I feel that launch times are important to the article, particularly where there are multiple launches on the same day, or where the date is different in different timezones. I really can't see an advantage to removing them.
  5. There is a graph of activity since 1957, in the main article Timeline of spaceflight. I think that is the best place to put that. I'll look into creating some of the other graphs that you have suggested, which could be placed in the orbital launch summary section.
  6. I agree with this, and I will try to add some images of key events. If the article can be changed to a format similar to the ISS article, then it might also be possible to integrate some articles into the table itself.
  7. I will look into this, and try to correct it.
  8. As I stated above, I can't see much of an advantage to sorting it, but if this is implemented, I will try to use that template.
  9. I've never had any problems with them, and they are two of the only three nearly comprehensive sources that I am aware of.
  10. That was an HTML comment. I'm not sure why it was displaying, but I think it was a note I'd put in to draw attention to that item when I was going over the article at a later date (which I obviously never did). A quick check revealed that the source article had been moved to a different URL, which was probably what I needed to look at.
  11. I believe that is a feature of Template:Cite web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and should be taken up on the appropriate talk page.
  12. That could be quite useful. I'll look into how it could be implemented. Alternatively, a link to List of human spaceflights, 2000s could be provided.
  13. I think that if the launches table was in an article on its own, it would still be too large.
  14. This has already been discussed, and it was decided that a fixed notability criteria was needed. This was determined to be anything that left, or was intended to have left, the Earth's atmosphere. This was later amended to state anything that crossed or was intended to cross the Kármán line, in order to further eliminate confusion. Whilst some of the sub-orbital flights might not be notable enough for an article in their own right, they are considered notable enough to include in a list. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scheduled rocket launches for further details.
Thank you for your review, and the suggestions that you have made will be used to improve the articles in question. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2008_in_spaceflight/archive1&oldid=630309254"