Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Race/archive3

Space Race
This article had too much good material to die. It fell short of FAC some 6 weeks ago, and then was re-nominated by someone unaware, who hadn&#8217;t changed a thing. Since that abortive effort, it has been revamped greatly per reviewers&#8217; requests. Innumerable redundancies have been removed, the time-sequencing has been improved, and the bizarre &#8220;Funding&#8221; section (which compared 60&#8217;s NASA to the current RSA) has been eliminated. The main objections were that a quarter of the article covered &#8220;recent developments&#8221;(which occurred well after the &#8220;race&#8221; ended) and that the spinoff ramifications of the race were glossed over. These too have been fixed, though I think mentioning the possibilities of future such &#8220;races&#8221; under &#8220;Legacy&#8221; is a reasonable inclusion. Sfahey 06:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * (I made this nomination for Sfahey because for technical reasons this was a bit complicated. Former noms can be found at Featured article candidates/Space Race/archive1 and Featured article candidates/Space Race/archive2 &rarr;Raul654 06:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC))


 * Support Object, but weakly this time . The article is much better now. Logical flow, nice language, and good presentation of history and related technology. The impact on other areas of technology development is not as extensive as I'd like it to be, but it is ok. I will change my vote to abstain after the following minor technical problem is fixed: 'see also' part in the 'Advances in technology and education' section needs to be moved to 'See also' section or incorporated into the text. My last remaining concern is that there is still no 'economy' section - i.e. how much did it cost, especially in the perespective of breaking the Soviet struggling economy (together with the arms race). If this is adressed, I'll support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I hadn't initially included a "Funding" section because of the near-meaninglessness of the numbers, which both parties derive in a hugely politicized fashion. I just did some research though, and gave it a shot, with the help of some wiki. data from the "old" article. I also moved the "see also"s into one unified "related topics" section. Some of the topics "seem" to be covered in the article, but the "categories" links take the reader to different places. Someone else put these in, and I can't see deleting them out of hand.Sfahey 00:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice. I expanded that section and I support the article now. Good job, everyone! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support however, i am disappointed that the "animals in space" section gives short shrift to the important role that chimpanzees played in the space race. perhaps a mention of this is a worthy addition.
 * thank you, unsigned wikipedian. On behalf of J.Fred Muggs, I have rectified this (simian) omission as well. Sfahey 00:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I think you've suffered long enough Ryan Anderson 00:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support 172 03:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Although the article is much improved from before in terms of organization and flow, I think there is still a significant imbalance that needs to be addressed. The narrative currently presents the material mostly as if it were an uninterrupted string of successes, achievements, and milestones. For example, "Deaths" is simply tacked on when the main narrative has concluded, as if it were a mere afterthought. Since the article acknowledges the significance of the Space Race to public morale, it needs to recognize this effect in terms of the tragedies as well as the triumphs. --Michael Snow 18:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Deaths" is hardly "tacked on" to the end of the article. If anything, it is made more important by being given a separate section, well within the article. In any event, this point of style is insufficient reason to vote "object" on a thoroughly researched, well-written 34 kb article containing a dozen pictures, copious statistics and references, and lovely tables which someone well before me put together. I request you reconsider your vote. Sfahey 23:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Object, but much better than before. The article still focuses on the science and misses the cultural impact. The legacy section is a start towards that, but unless I missed it the article hardly even mentions the way the Space Race captivated the American people, and I am assuming the Soviet people too. In the US it certainly very often captured headlines and a lot of mindshare. Also no mention about how many people not interested in space were entirely opposed to the money spent on it. Also, what about the common references well into the 80s to the space race as still being ongoing? I'm sure I heard it in the mainstream media in the 80's too, but so far haven't found anything. - Taxman 19:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is an encyclopedia article on the Space Race, and as such I think it is clearly of featured article quality. Of course it "focuses on science", but also includes a substantial portion of historical and "legacy" material, especially since "Piotr's" additions which you may not have seen. Would you "object" to an otherwise excellent article on the Olympics, for example, because it didn't include specific mention of how many people enjoyed it, or who objected to its costs?  The main previous problem with this article when I "adopted" it (instead of just taking potshots at it) was that it ran all over the place, and did not limit the "Space Race" to a specific era.  I researched it, and I think very nicely incorporated, and bent over backwards to explain, the most accepted time-frame for this "race" (which of course never really existed). The notion of returning again to redefine the "race" to include someone else's notion of what other decades it might span is too much to expect. Perhaps I was right ... articles on "exploding whales" and "pepsi can stoves", which no one knows or cares enough about to criticize, should dominate the FAC's. I've reached my limit on this.  I'm going to add a sentence about how many bazillion people watched men walk on the moon, ask that you too reconsider your vote, and then bow out. Sfahey 23:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see "Sputnik and Amer. reaction", "First human on moon/Amer.strategy" and "First human on moon/Apollo gets there ist". Lots of public opinion material was already there. Sfahey 23:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I read the article before my comment. And you are right it is unfortunate silly topics can become FA's more easily. But if you notice I didn't shy away in the least from voicing the weaknesses of those articles too. Lighten up man. If you're that stressed about the issue, get away from the computer for a while. What I have pointed out above is not just a side bit of trivia I am asking for. The space race truly capitvated a generation. After re-reading what you have pointed out, there is a bit more than I could see when scanning to look for stuff on this, so if it stresses you out so much you're going to quit over it its not worth it. My point about the end of the race is that the text doesn't provide any of the reasons for why that is the "accepted time-frame". It just says the "concept of a "race" became outdated" because there was one cooperative mission. If you have researched something that shows that is the accepted time frame, just mention it, that is all I am asking. - Taxman 00:56, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * The section on the "end" of the race goes into much more detail about how the "race" as such ended, including how the parties departed from once-shared goals and went in different directions after 1975. The requested material has nevertheless been added and referenced. I still think it unreasonable that, in an article of this scope, this point was seen as justifying a vote to "object". Sfahey 03:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish instead of assuming I'm trying to be difficult or something, you would assume I'm just trying to be helpful in trying to reach a very high quality article. The article is much better than it was when I objected to the last nomination and I think it is better than it was when it was nominated this time. - Taxman 13:44, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for support.Sfahey 04:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support looking good now.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support comprehensive, colorful, fascinating. Sandover 05:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, ready for take off.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 22:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)