User talk:Mstachowsky

Critical Design Review
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Critical Design Review, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Critical Design Review. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources.
I have been editing for a while, emphasis on editing. I attempt to add value by making the articles more usable. I, like many Wikipedia editors, am compulsive, correcting mistakes, adding details, applying Wikipedia "standards". There are lists of "citation errors" and I have been going through some of them correcting articles with "errors".

An error example: using access-date when no URL is used. Personally, I do not think this is an error. But it has been decided that it is. This error unexpectedly appears because there is a Bot (probably more than one) that removes the url value from journal cites when it is the same page that doi, jstor, etc. uses. At least one of the Bots does not remove the access-date, resulting in the article showing up on a list. Most journal cites do not need a URL because they will have a DOI (or something) that points to the abstract. When I encounter a journal cite without a DOI, I sometimes Google the title of the article. This often finds the abstract which has the DOI, etc. which I add to the cite.

I sometimes correct "Missing or empty |title=" errors, depends on my mood. I feel the contributor was lazy. Bare URLs are lousy cites. Web pages disappear. The only reason that they appear on an error list is because a cite template was used. I figure another editor can update these cites, they need a lot more than a title.

Lunar lander specifics:

"Lunar Lander Stage Requirements Based on the Civil Needs Data Base" is a good cite. I think the web url was removed from the Wikipedia code. (I found an online source for the PDF.) The article would be improved by upgrading the cite using a cite template.

"Nasa: Luna 9" is a lousy cite. It relies on the link to provide details for a good cite. I would not be able to access the source if the web page disappeared. A cite template should be used to add and format the details.

Enough for now, thanks for reading User-duck (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)