Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1952 in spaceflight/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC).

1952 in spaceflight

 * Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this article is about the year, 1952, in spaceflight. I did the head and the initial finalization of the table. Sotarkhu then did yeoman's work error-checking and revising it. Similar work got us FLC on Spaceflight before 1951 and 1951 in spaceflight, so this is the next article in queue! --Neopeius (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strange—it looks like I nominated it back in 2021 but perhaps forgot to add it to the FLN page? --Neopeius (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like you created the nomination page but didn't actually put the talk page template or put it here? I'll delete that one and move this nomination. -- Pres N  14:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dunno what happened there. Neopeius (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by SilverTiger:

 * wouldn't it be programs, plural? Since it sounds like each branch had its own program going on.
 * Fixed


 * The entire first paragraph under Space exploration highlights#US Navy lacks references. And I think it could stand to be reworded to be easier to understand, and to make clearer why those changes were (if they were) important.
 * Add as applicable.
 * Fixed ("development of")


 * The last three entries in the October table seem to be missing information. Same for the second November entry.
 * No data to put in there.


 * Would it be possible to center-align the "By rocket" bar graph legend under the graph itself? Right now it looks a little awkward.
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean, nor do I have the skills to do that—would you mind terribly? :)

That's the first pass. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! --Neopeius (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! This was an interesting, if brief, read, but I imagine it only gets more interesting from here on out. Though if years in spaceflight is an ongoing project, I'm impressed- you have quite a bit of work ahead on you. Support, and happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! It is an ongoing project that I fell into rather by accident. I have done up through 1955 (this is the third to get the FAC treatment) and Sotarkhu has worked over the tables through 1957. I am in the middle of the article bits for 1956 as we speak (but keep getting side-tracked on projects like R-5 Pobeda. I also maintain the master timeline project page, which I'll update after this process. The timeline is pretty well handled from 2009 onwards, so this is a finite project... --Neopeius (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Balon Greyjoy
Will be back for future commenrts! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Woohoo! --Neopeius (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "all branches of the United States' military" I think this should be more specific, since it doesn't appear that the Marine Corps or Coast Guard had involvement


 * Ah, but you're forgetting the USPS' nascent space program... :) Changed to "several".


 * "groundwork was laid for the launch of the first artificial satellite with the scheduling" Is there anything more concrete hear? Something like the relative increase in the amount of funding?'


 * Elaborated.


 * "No new ballistic missiles were added to the arsenals of either the United States or the Soviet Union in 1952." I'm assuming this means no new models of ballistic missiles were added, rather than there were no new physical missiles?


 * Changed to "No new models of ballistic missile..."


 * "the rocket crashed 4 miles (6.4 km) or 5 miles (8.0 km)" I changed this to "the rocket crashed 4 to 5 miles (6 to 8 km) downrange to the southeast" since it is a range and not discrete distances. Additionally, I reduced the significant figures in the conversions.


 * Thank you.


 * The inflation conversions should have a date specified as to when it's referring. But I would also argue since the figures are being compared to each other and not to modern day, I don't think it's necessarily (and stylistically, I don't think it belongs)


 * Agreed—I thought the template would do it, but it's not that smart. I just got rid of the inflation conversions.


 * "Air Forces's apparent lack of enthusiasm for the project" This should be attributed to someone (if nothing else, "Air Force leadership"), as it's not like the organization has a lack of enthusiasm.


 * I disagree, and the wording of the source is similar.
 * Not a deal breaker, but I don't like the personification of an organization. Source wording aside, it's the decision makers of an organization that dislike something.


 * Change from the passive voice to the active voice for the R-5 and Redstone rockets.


 * How do you like now?


 * "multitude of nations in such farflung regions as the Arctic and Antarctica" List which countries contribute, and I don't think "farflung" is necessary when the regions are listed


 * Rewrote the paragraph.


 * "In part inspired by lectures he gave to the British Interplanetary Society in London the previous year, the University of Maryland's Fred Singer began espousing in both print and in public presentations the use of small artificial satellites to conduct scientific observations" This reads like Singer is inspired by himself?


 * I was paraphrasing what he said, but I have rewritten it. Hopefully, some yahoo doesn't come in and take out the 1951 reference since it didn't happen in 1952 (that happened on another article; the fellow had never heard of "context"...)

All I have so far! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Will attend to shortly. --Neopeius (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Done! Sorry for the delay. I got summoned to the Talk page on the Space Race, and that turned into a rat's nest. --Neopeius (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Sorry for the delay (computer rebuild). I support! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Z1720
Image review - pass
 * Suggest adding alt text to the image in the infobox, per MOS:ALT


 * I think I did it right.

Prose review:


 * Suggest adding Template:Inflation to the article after the costs.
 * I made some minor edits when I noticed things: feel free to revert.


 * "Half-again" means "one-and-a-half times" :) Fixed.

Support. No major concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! --Neopeius (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Frostly
Support. I've made a few minor copy edits; feel free to undo. Frostly (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! Is four supports enough? What should I do next? --Neopeius (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strike that. I see we're still at two supports, waiting on the return of and  --Neopeius (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I already supported a long time ago, check my last comment above. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Kerbyki
Support. This article is very thorough, meets Wikipedia quality standards, and is backed by reliable secondary sources. This topic, being from the early days of spaceflight, fills a void in space coverage; popular media tends to start with US crewed missions. --Kerbyki (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N  03:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.