Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.
Needs citations:
Other issues:
I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the Aircraft section, as a list, seem out of place? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to summarize what is there down to 3-4 of the more notabile examples, and move the bulk of the content to a
List of NASA aircraft article (note that I'm not particularly attached to that name, as I just thought it up off the top of my head)?
—
V = I * R (
talk)
10:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I liked the rewrite of the lede, which included more material about science (earth and space science), but I noticed in the history section of the article, there is barely any mention of any earth/space science missions. NASA has launched hundreds of science missions (including Hubble Space Telescope, Clementine (spacecraft), Mars Exploration Rover, COBE, Pioneer program, Voyager program, and many more), but they barely get mentioned in the history section. I think someone (it will be me if no one does in the next few weeks) needs to sprinkle those hilights into the history. Also, Aeronautics and Science comprise over $5 billion each year, somewhere between a third and a quarter of the NASA budget from its inception, so its certainly substantial. Jonverve Talk Contrib 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
See the budget here.
Maybe we could break up the History section by decades, like the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, instead of by human spaceflight missions? (i.e 1.4 Project Mercury, 1.5 Project Gemini, 1.6 Apollo program, 1.7 Skylab, 1.8 Apollo-Soyuz, 1.9 Shuttle era). Does that sound good? I know that could take a little bit of effort but I really think it could help the article tremendously. I want to get some feedback before I think about starting on it though.... I do like the additions of the 1.2 NACA, 1.3 NASA sections under history, those are great! Jonverve Talk Contrib 04:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Good work addressing the issues. I went through and addressed the remaining issues, so please review my edits. The article will definitely need more expansion and additional sources before moving on to FAC. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.
Needs citations:
Other issues:
I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the Aircraft section, as a list, seem out of place? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to summarize what is there down to 3-4 of the more notabile examples, and move the bulk of the content to a
List of NASA aircraft article (note that I'm not particularly attached to that name, as I just thought it up off the top of my head)?
—
V = I * R (
talk)
10:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I liked the rewrite of the lede, which included more material about science (earth and space science), but I noticed in the history section of the article, there is barely any mention of any earth/space science missions. NASA has launched hundreds of science missions (including Hubble Space Telescope, Clementine (spacecraft), Mars Exploration Rover, COBE, Pioneer program, Voyager program, and many more), but they barely get mentioned in the history section. I think someone (it will be me if no one does in the next few weeks) needs to sprinkle those hilights into the history. Also, Aeronautics and Science comprise over $5 billion each year, somewhere between a third and a quarter of the NASA budget from its inception, so its certainly substantial. Jonverve Talk Contrib 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
See the budget here.
Maybe we could break up the History section by decades, like the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, instead of by human spaceflight missions? (i.e 1.4 Project Mercury, 1.5 Project Gemini, 1.6 Apollo program, 1.7 Skylab, 1.8 Apollo-Soyuz, 1.9 Shuttle era). Does that sound good? I know that could take a little bit of effort but I really think it could help the article tremendously. I want to get some feedback before I think about starting on it though.... I do like the additions of the 1.2 NACA, 1.3 NASA sections under history, those are great! Jonverve Talk Contrib 04:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Good work addressing the issues. I went through and addressed the remaining issues, so please review my edits. The article will definitely need more expansion and additional sources before moving on to FAC. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)