This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
NASA was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
NASA Edge was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 September 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into NASA. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
NASAcast was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 September 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into NASA. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
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 within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry 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.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Text and/or other creative content from NASA was copied or moved into List of NASA aircraft with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
RM, NASA → National Aeronautics and Space Administration, No consensus, 24 August 2006, discussion
RM, NASA → National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Not moved, 5 March 2015, discussion
RM, NASA → National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Not moved, 7 April 2022, discussion
I'm not certain whether these sources, rather than secondary sources as currently used, are preferred for this. Are there reliable secondary sources easily available? (sdsds - talk) 04:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in the moon landing section, at paragraph 5, line 4, the word apollo is spelled appollo. could somebody fix that quick Andpug1 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all! I will be starting work to bring this article to a good article status over the next couple of weeks. Any suggestions, comments, concerns welcome below! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The final two paragraphs of the "Moon landing" subsection don't really seem to belong there. The second paragraph should also be reworded and expanded. Ships & Space(Edits) 21:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ships&Space, thanks for the thoughts! Do you think the last two paragraphs be kept in the NASA article to another section or deleted altogether? Will work on re-wording/expanding second paragraph. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a bit of news coverage, I would say yes but it should be limited to a single sentence at least on this page. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source: "NASA has determined that the next opportunity to propose for the fifth round of New Frontiers missions will occur no later than the fall of 2024. Missions in NASA’s New Frontiers Program tackle specific solar system exploration goals identified as top priorities by the planetary science community. The strategy is to explore the solar system with medium-class spacecraft missions that conduct high-science-return investigations that add to our understanding of the solar system." Article: "NASA has determined that the next opportunity to propose for the fifth round of New Frontiers missions will occur no later than the fall of 2024. Missions in NASA's New Frontiers Program tackle specific Solar System exploration goals identified as top priorities by the planetary science community. Exploring the Solar System with medium-class spacecraft missions that conduct high-science-return investigations is NASA's strategy to further understand the Solar System." See WP:CLOP; this needs to be rephrased in your own words.
Source: "NASA Administrator Bill Nelson announced at the end of a “State of NASA” speech at NASA Headquarters June 2 that the DAVINCI+ and VERITAS missions will launch to Venus in the late 2020s, having beat out competing proposals for missions to Jupiter’s volcanic moon Io and Neptune’s large moon Triton that were also selected as finalists in early 2020." Article: "NASA Administrator Bill Nelson announced on June 2, 2021, that the DAVINCI+ and VERITAS missions were selected to launch to Venus in the late 2020s, having beat out competing proposals for missions to Jupiter's volcanic moon Io and Neptune's large moon Triton that were also selected as Discovery program finalists in early 2020". Same issue.
Source: "The space agency would bring a scientific perspective to efforts already underway by the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to make sense of dozens of such sightings, Thomas Zurbuchen, the head of NASA’s science mission directorate, said during a speech before the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. He said it was “high-risk, high-impact” research that the space agency should not shy away from, even if it is a controversial field of study." Article: "Zurbuchen said the space agency would bring a scientific perspective to efforts already underway by the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to make sense of dozens of such sightings. He said it was "high-risk, high-impact" research that the space agency should not shy away from, even if it is a controversial field of study." Same issue.
Source: "NASA's Earth Science Data Systems (ESDS) Program oversees the life cycle of NASA’s Earth science data—from acquisition through processing and distribution. The primary goal of ESDS is to maximize the scientific return from NASA's missions and experiments for research and applied scientists, decision makers, and society at large." Article: "NASA also maintains the Earth Science Data Systems (ESDS) program to oversee the life cycle of NASA's Earth science data — from acquisition through processing and distribution. The primary goal of ESDS is to maximize the scientific return from NASA's missions and experiments for research and applied scientists, decision makers, and society at large." Same problem.
Unfortunately this is a quick fail; I'm sorry about this, but at least you've only been waiting a week for a review. Four of the first six sources checked by Earwig have text taken directly from the source article. Please take a look at WP:CLOP, which explains what needs to be done to resolve problems like this -- essentially, the material has to be written in such a way that it no longer seems to be a slight rewording of the original text.
I would also suggest that you run Earwig yourself and make sure it comes up clean -- you'll see there that it flags some sources, such as this, as possible copyvios, but that one is actually fine as all that's taken from it is various proper names and titles. You have to check the individual "compare" links to make sure those are all clean.
I might also suggest you look at the length of the article -- it's extremely long as it stands. This is not really a GA criterion, just a general comment on article usefulness. Are there possibly paragraphs which could be moved to sub-articles, per summary style? That would allow you to shorten this article. Best of luck with this; if/when you renominate I will try to pick it up again for a review if it sits in the queue for a long time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the helpful feedback @Mike Christie. I think I was quite ambitious with taking on such a large article as my first GA nom. I think I will first focus on smaller articles first as my first GAs. I might try to improve this one in the future though! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]