This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major
websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable
podcasts and
podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
The article looks much stronger, but is still lacking references for several statements that may be contested. I don't object to the reverts of my edits, but readding a redlink and an uncited subscription service may make the article more vulnerable to flagging for advertising or notability. Are there any trade/industry coverage of this website that could be used to help source this content? Since this article showed up in a thread on the website's forum, I'm hoping some of the members will have knowledge or access to some suitable sources.
Flowanda |
Talk21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yea, agreed. I'm still working on adding references for the couple of remaining {{Fact}} tags, by talking to the people who work at the site (through their message board). The article is still a work in progress, basically.
Regarding the red links, please see
WP:REDDEAL for amplification on why I added and readded the links. Basically, red links shouldn't be an issue. Red links are the primary method to achieve Wikipedia growth, after all.
As for the L2 service, I did copy edit the text to remove the peacock terminology. It's more a simple statement of facts now, so I didn't actually disregard your removal of the section completely. As I stated in the edit summary though, I think that the notability of the service is established by the text (including their own materiel). If I can find a reference to the service in a third party publication I will certainly add it, however. —
V = I * R (
talk)
21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Regarding notability, the site has been operational for seven years now and claims half a million visitors per month. Given that they often publish information not widely available in mainstream media, this should be regarded as a source of sometimes scarce information.
Enquire (
talk)
21:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)reply
NASASpaceFlight.com
While the website logo is styled NASA spaceflight.com all text styles are NASASpaceFlight.com ... perhaps this page should me moved there and this page redirect?
Enquire (
talk)
21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Was that before or after the "reads like an advertisment" tag was added? if after, do we think it resolved the issue? I mod at NSF so best not actually edit any of it. ++
Lar:
t/
c22:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Looking at the history, the "reads like an advertisement" tag was added after that rewrite. After doing a quick copyedit on the article I must admit (as a long-time wiki editor but also a long-time NSF reader) that it still reads very much like it was written by someone close to the site, rather than the expected
impartial tone. Also of note is that all but 10 of the 37 references are
primary sources. As a result, I think it will be difficult to achieve consensus for removing the tag just yet.
Rosbif73 (
talk)
08:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major
websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable
podcasts and
podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
The article looks much stronger, but is still lacking references for several statements that may be contested. I don't object to the reverts of my edits, but readding a redlink and an uncited subscription service may make the article more vulnerable to flagging for advertising or notability. Are there any trade/industry coverage of this website that could be used to help source this content? Since this article showed up in a thread on the website's forum, I'm hoping some of the members will have knowledge or access to some suitable sources.
Flowanda |
Talk21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Yea, agreed. I'm still working on adding references for the couple of remaining {{Fact}} tags, by talking to the people who work at the site (through their message board). The article is still a work in progress, basically.
Regarding the red links, please see
WP:REDDEAL for amplification on why I added and readded the links. Basically, red links shouldn't be an issue. Red links are the primary method to achieve Wikipedia growth, after all.
As for the L2 service, I did copy edit the text to remove the peacock terminology. It's more a simple statement of facts now, so I didn't actually disregard your removal of the section completely. As I stated in the edit summary though, I think that the notability of the service is established by the text (including their own materiel). If I can find a reference to the service in a third party publication I will certainly add it, however. —
V = I * R (
talk)
21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Regarding notability, the site has been operational for seven years now and claims half a million visitors per month. Given that they often publish information not widely available in mainstream media, this should be regarded as a source of sometimes scarce information.
Enquire (
talk)
21:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)reply
NASASpaceFlight.com
While the website logo is styled NASA spaceflight.com all text styles are NASASpaceFlight.com ... perhaps this page should me moved there and this page redirect?
Enquire (
talk)
21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Was that before or after the "reads like an advertisment" tag was added? if after, do we think it resolved the issue? I mod at NSF so best not actually edit any of it. ++
Lar:
t/
c22:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Looking at the history, the "reads like an advertisement" tag was added after that rewrite. After doing a quick copyedit on the article I must admit (as a long-time wiki editor but also a long-time NSF reader) that it still reads very much like it was written by someone close to the site, rather than the expected
impartial tone. Also of note is that all but 10 of the 37 references are
primary sources. As a result, I think it will be difficult to achieve consensus for removing the tag just yet.
Rosbif73 (
talk)
08:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply