Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Race/archive1

Space race
I was looking through some older COTWs and I thought this was one of the top 3 previous ones (not counting the two that went one to become featured articles). I think it is a good featured article candidate. (Not a self nom) &rarr;Raul654 02:23, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll support. I rather like the timeline. Andre ( talk ) 16:20, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Quite comprehensive, plenty of references, visually pleasing and well written. CGorman 16:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article, on of the best-organised I've seen in a while.  Smoddy | Talk 17:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support from contributor. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I believe this was nominated before, it would be worthwile to find this in the archieve and see if the previous objections were adressed. I think that at least one wasn't: what were the consequences of the space race to global economy and Cold War (the article doesn't even mention that financial burden of space race contributed to the Soviet Union collapse) and what technological innovations were adopted into other spheres of life (the article has just one sentence about dual-purpose technlogies...). In other words, this article is very POVed - it appreas to describe space race only as a technological event connect with space exploration, forgeting about everything else. Also, an abundance of one-sentence paragraphs is apparent even to me :> This has the potential to become featured, but needs to be fixed first. Finally, lead is too short. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I checked, and saw no evidence that this was a featured article candidate before. &rarr;Raul654 14:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps it was mentioned during CoTW or PR. I am pretty sure I saw them somwhere. Anyway, I am afraid those points are still valid, no matter where they were raised first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It *was* a COTW - that's what I said when I nominated it ;) &rarr;Raul654 19:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above (still valid), I just realized that section Funding compares NASA to RKA, whch was founded in 1990s, and sais nothing about the earlier Russian governmental space agency. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Agree with Piotrus. It is very unbalanced by largely glossing over the cultural effects and  technological effects outside of the space race itself. Everyday life was heavily affected by much of the technological improvements that were originally done only for the space programs.  I also went and checked, it was PR that Piotrus was thinking of and I made a very similar comment there that was ignored.  See Peer_review/Archive_2. - Taxman 23:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, is it really generally accepted that the space race ended in 1975 as stated in the article? I thought people were still calling it that well through the 80's. If it is agreed by everyone that it was over in 1975 what is the 'Recent developments' section doing in the article? Is the deaths section comprehensive? Was Apollo 1 the only deaths NASA had during the space race? The mention of Laika is incorrect. According to Laika she didn't not make it back alive because the technology wasn't sufficient for that, but because she had already died well before the craft could have made it back. And the above is still not in the article, the only mention is a too short section tucked in the 'Other successes'. The space race was not just about aerospace and the cold war, it had far reaching effects. - Taxman 16:34, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Object. I started to do some copyediting on this (very informative) article. It gave me a headache, and I stopped after but one section. Single-sentence paragraphs abound throughout, as do sloppy punctuation and painful constructions ("this class of satellite 'meant that' tracking systems no longer ...."). I will do some work on these areas, but haven't the expertise to organize the "big picture" as to just WHAT the topic of the article really is: It has to be decided whether this is about "space races", or about THE "Space Race" which is alluded to in the lead. I would suggest the latter, with other "space races" as background. Sfahey 00:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sfahey, this article should be about "the" space race. There really has been only one, and as such there really is no "generic" term "space race". Paul August  &#9742; 01:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is now clearly about THE Space Race. Would someone be so kind as to change the title so both "S" and "R" are capitalized. I imagine the easiest way to do so is to recopy the whole thing into a "new" article, but I've only been at this a few months and don't want to mess up and erase the whole dang thing somehow. Also, take another look at the current text; I believe the "German influence" section is too lengthy, but otherwise I would vote "support" at this point.Sfahey 03:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly how it works, but don't worry, I fixed it. The article is now located at Space Race &rarr;Raul654 03:56, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. The article has been retitled (thank you, "Raul"), made more about the "race", had the lead expanded, and the sections reordered. There is still some reambling about the German contributions, but that is a minor objection. Sfahey 20:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I find this article lacking in information about the social implications of the Space Race, especially the ways the Space Race was portrayed in both the Soviet sphere as well as the Western world. Páll 20:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)