Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NERVA/archive1

NERVA

 * Nominator(s):  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is about NERVA, the NASA nuclear rocket project. Unlike its forerunner, Project Rover, it developed entire engines and not just reactors for them. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood
For what it's worth I don't know what it's about from the lead section. It lists dates and that it was considered successful but I truly have no idea what it did, what those goals were or why it was successful from the lead (how it was tested, why it was needed, etc.). In my opinion it wasn't that successful if it never launched anything. It doesn't really cover the "origins" section either. Also none of the statistics from the engine infobox are covered in the lead, how it compares with other engines, etc.

Looking onward, the article from what I can tell is well-written overall but the lead isn't great in my opinion. I'll list some other comments I have:

Comments from Vanamonde93

 * As I noted when reviewing Project Rover at FAC, that article had a lot of redundancies with this one. That might be expected if one was an overview of a broader topic, but it's not; they're almost-but-not-quite identical topics. Having two FAs with the same content does not feel right to me. This isn't made explicit in the criteria, but it seems to me that it's common sense; articles that are redundant in this way usually get dealt with long before they appear at FAC. Given that it's a potentially fuzzy area, I'd like to hear from the coordinators what weight they would give this concern, should it rise to the level of an "oppose". Vanamonde (Talk) 01:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is certainly overlap in the Origins section, and the Project Rover section is a summary of that article. The two articles diverge thereafter. The structure has been established for a long time, with them assuming their current form structurally by 2010. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are other featured articles with substantial overlap, such as those on various warships of the same class.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your claim that the articles diverge after the first two sections is inaccurate. There is substantial overlap in "transfer to NASA" (corresponding to a section of the same title in the other article); "Kiwi" (corresponding to a section of the same name in the other article); "Cancellation"; and "Post-NERVA research" (corresponding to "Legacy" in the other article). They even use identical sentences in some places. The SNPO subsection has material that's scattered across the Project Rover article. As far as I can see, the "NERVA NRX" and "NERVA XE" are the only ones that are entirely unique to this article; that's two subsections of eleven. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would consider this a valid oppose reason. I'm not sure that others would, but I would take it seriously. Apologies for the late reply, just getting back after a computer failure. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably the worst possible time for a computer failure, but glad you're okay. I wasn't trying to game the system, only to bring both articles up to FAC standard. As says, they are almost-but-not-quite identical topics. The only alternative I can think of is to merge the two articles, but I doubt that there would be support for that. If the article cannot be promoted, then the nomination will have to be archived.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I was kind of seeing both sides of the argument so I was interested in Ealdgyth's thoughts. In any case the review isn't making headway so I think need to archive no matter what. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)