The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [1]. reply
List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a fantastic and interesting list and one of the best on the Wiki. I believe that it meets all the criteria for a featured list, and the content of the article generally only changes in response to additional launches (as expected). — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 03:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Well, nominations by someone who only started editing the article the same day generally don't go so well, but I like the idea of this list, so: I'm not going to do an in-depth review yet, but just skimming I'm seeing a lot of ending sentences and paragraphs that don't have citations. That... needs to get fixed if this has a chance. Additionally, those charts in the "Launch statistics" section sure are pretty but I have a very low percentage belief that they meet WP:ACCESS at all, both in terms of "can a screen reader parse these graphs" and the first one being just shades of blue. Actually, there's a lot of ACCESS work to do- pulled up the tables in the section after that and there's no scopes being applied; the formatting of the whole thing is also just a bit... off, in addition to the seemingly random font size changes in the text. None of the tables are sortable seemingly only so that you can have pseudo-headings within the table, which I'm not buying, and I'm going to stop there.
Okay, I think the accessibility concerns are all taken care of now- capping them. I did have one last unrelated thought- It's a little odd having the title as "Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy", especially as there were only 5 Falcon 1 launches. I get why- the Falcon Heavy was originally the Falcon 9 Heavy, but have you considered merging them all together into one "List of SpaceX Falcon launches"? If you don't want to go that route, I think that it would be helpful to mention in the lead where you have "The Falcon Heavy is derived from the Falcon 9." that it used to be named the Falcon 9 Heavy. --
Pres
N
20:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
@ PresN and RexxS: The article has been stable for a while. Any chance for you to move the review forward or pass the buck to other volunteers? — JFG talk 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Comments epic piece of work... some quick notes before a proper review.
More once we're making progress on this lot. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Not all of the launches are made by national entities. In my view, the national flags of nation-state governments should only be used to represent government customers. They should not reflect the "Customer" or the many payloads who are launched by
private companies. Private companies are not creatures of the
nation-state they reside in, except in a few countries.
Now if we did not try to munge the entire row into some sort of national flag symbol, the flag icon might make sense if we had a column for "Country that issued the launch license", as that would always be a nation state. But using the national flag of a country for some private payload doesn't really make sense; we ought to reserve flags for government payloads, and not use them for private payloads. Or just get rid of the flag icons completely, and not put them on any payloads. Cheers. N2e ( talk)
Most people will recognise a few flags but not all of them. Where people don't recognise a flag but immediately next to it the customer says Thaicom or BulgariaSat or Turkmenistan NSA then there is little need to look up the flag. I think this reduces the problem and I agree that some use to some people is better than nothing for anyone. crandles ( talk) 12:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply WP:MOSFLAG says to use the flags only to represent the country or nation. So they work if the payload is a government payload of the country. They simply should not be used to represent private payloads 'cause they happen to have been assembled in some particular country. The list isn't ready to be a Featured list with the overuse, and inappropriate use, of these flag symbols. N2e ( talk) 02:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
It seems there are no objections to my removal of the flags. As this discussion seems complete, I am capping it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 22:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|
@ PresN and The Rambling Man: Looks like all of the issues you pointed out have been resolved. What do we need to do to move forward with the review and hopefully reach Featured List status soon? — JFG talk 05:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
This list is pretty sharp, lets try to not let it linger any longer... -- Pres N 22:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|website=Space.com
would still be better. --
RexxS (
talk)
19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments – Interesting list. Here are several comments from my read-through, which I enjoyed:
|
@ PresN: What is the procedure for a source review? -- mfb ( talk) 00:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm going to take a stab at fixing some of these formatting issues this afternoon, since this has dragged on so long, but I'd like it if y'all did some too. -- Pres N 18:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [1]. reply
List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a fantastic and interesting list and one of the best on the Wiki. I believe that it meets all the criteria for a featured list, and the content of the article generally only changes in response to additional launches (as expected). — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 03:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Well, nominations by someone who only started editing the article the same day generally don't go so well, but I like the idea of this list, so: I'm not going to do an in-depth review yet, but just skimming I'm seeing a lot of ending sentences and paragraphs that don't have citations. That... needs to get fixed if this has a chance. Additionally, those charts in the "Launch statistics" section sure are pretty but I have a very low percentage belief that they meet WP:ACCESS at all, both in terms of "can a screen reader parse these graphs" and the first one being just shades of blue. Actually, there's a lot of ACCESS work to do- pulled up the tables in the section after that and there's no scopes being applied; the formatting of the whole thing is also just a bit... off, in addition to the seemingly random font size changes in the text. None of the tables are sortable seemingly only so that you can have pseudo-headings within the table, which I'm not buying, and I'm going to stop there.
Okay, I think the accessibility concerns are all taken care of now- capping them. I did have one last unrelated thought- It's a little odd having the title as "Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy", especially as there were only 5 Falcon 1 launches. I get why- the Falcon Heavy was originally the Falcon 9 Heavy, but have you considered merging them all together into one "List of SpaceX Falcon launches"? If you don't want to go that route, I think that it would be helpful to mention in the lead where you have "The Falcon Heavy is derived from the Falcon 9." that it used to be named the Falcon 9 Heavy. --
Pres
N
20:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
@ PresN and RexxS: The article has been stable for a while. Any chance for you to move the review forward or pass the buck to other volunteers? — JFG talk 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Comments epic piece of work... some quick notes before a proper review.
More once we're making progress on this lot. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Not all of the launches are made by national entities. In my view, the national flags of nation-state governments should only be used to represent government customers. They should not reflect the "Customer" or the many payloads who are launched by
private companies. Private companies are not creatures of the
nation-state they reside in, except in a few countries.
Now if we did not try to munge the entire row into some sort of national flag symbol, the flag icon might make sense if we had a column for "Country that issued the launch license", as that would always be a nation state. But using the national flag of a country for some private payload doesn't really make sense; we ought to reserve flags for government payloads, and not use them for private payloads. Or just get rid of the flag icons completely, and not put them on any payloads. Cheers. N2e ( talk)
Most people will recognise a few flags but not all of them. Where people don't recognise a flag but immediately next to it the customer says Thaicom or BulgariaSat or Turkmenistan NSA then there is little need to look up the flag. I think this reduces the problem and I agree that some use to some people is better than nothing for anyone. crandles ( talk) 12:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply WP:MOSFLAG says to use the flags only to represent the country or nation. So they work if the payload is a government payload of the country. They simply should not be used to represent private payloads 'cause they happen to have been assembled in some particular country. The list isn't ready to be a Featured list with the overuse, and inappropriate use, of these flag symbols. N2e ( talk) 02:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
It seems there are no objections to my removal of the flags. As this discussion seems complete, I am capping it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 22:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|
@ PresN and The Rambling Man: Looks like all of the issues you pointed out have been resolved. What do we need to do to move forward with the review and hopefully reach Featured List status soon? — JFG talk 05:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
This list is pretty sharp, lets try to not let it linger any longer... -- Pres N 22:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|website=Space.com
would still be better. --
RexxS (
talk)
19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments – Interesting list. Here are several comments from my read-through, which I enjoyed:
|
@ PresN: What is the procedure for a source review? -- mfb ( talk) 00:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm going to take a stab at fixing some of these formatting issues this afternoon, since this has dragged on so long, but I'd like it if y'all did some too. -- Pres N 18:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply