Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Space Shuttle missions/archive2


 * 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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

List of Space Shuttle missions

 * Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Previous nominations:
 * Featured list candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1
 * Featured list candidates/List of Space Shuttle missions/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards for a featured list. I previously nominated this list a year ago and declined because I was inactive due to schooling. I have since resumed activity on-wiki and will be around to answer questions. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Recusing myself as a delegate to review this list:
 * Looks like I reviewed and supported this list a year ago, so that's a good sign
 * Indeed it is! :)
 * The first time you call it the International Space Station it should be followed by (ISS), since you use the abbreviation thereafter.
 * Fixed.
 * "78 missions while 54 missions [...] and one" - use numerals consistently
 * Fixed.
 * "Four full operational orbiters" -> "Four fully operational orbiters"
 * Fixed
 * "by Atlantis on 21 July 2011" - in the image caption in the lead you use month-day-year, but here is day-month-year- either is fine, as it's american / military-ish, but you should be consistent. You seem to use day-month-year in the tables.
 * Fixed the lead image caption.
 * Okay, the numbering section is really confusing. Looks like what it is is that they numbered them 1-9, then had the code scheme, but kept using the sequential numbers on paperwork? Then when they started up again after STS-51-L, they went back to sequential officially, with the numbering starting at 26, only now the numbers can get out of order because they didn't renumber when they rescheduled a mission? Assuming that's right, your text is a mess- You say they were sequential for 1-33, then that they officially used the code scheme for a while, then sudenly say "Flights were assigned with sequential numbers from STS-9 through STS-33"... which you already said a different way, so it gets read that the code scheme stopped and they restarted at 9... and it isn't true anyway, your table says that STS-9 was the official number, no code given. You then say that "After the Challenger disaster, NASA restarted with STS-26R"... except what they actually did was go back to using the sequential numbers, and they slapped an R on the end (which you don't have in the table). Then you change paragraphs, and talk about the Challenger disaster again, saying that the numbers got out of order. It would be way less confusing if you combined these two paragraphs- "after the Challenger, they went back to sequential number, though they get out of order. For STS-26 through STS-33, the missions taking place in the two years after the program restarted, an R was appended (e.g. STS-26R) to represent 'reflight'."
 * You got it right, as far as I know. I've removed some information to clarify.
 * Basically: that whole section needs to be re-flowed, it's confusing. It's also not clear why STS-26 through 33 don't have an R in the table.
 * R's added, articles don't exist though so I had to fiddle links.
 * Additionally, both here and in the lead you talk as if STS-9 was the first flight with a code, but you call it STS-9 in the table, not STS-40-A.
 * I confess I am confused here, as I reference by year not flight. I changed one link, I hope that clarified things.
 * "Four missions were cut short by a day or more whilst on orbit" - "on" orbit?
 * Fixed.
 * You use periods in the tables sometimes, when you shouldn't: "ISS assembly flight ULF4: Mini-Research Module 1.", "ISS assembly flight ULF3: ExPRESS Logistics Carriers (ELCs) 1 & 2.", etc. Rows: 2, 18, 19, 28, 74, 127, 129, 132
 * Fixed.
 * Redirects that don't seem intentional, if you want to fix them: Challenger in the lead, DoD row 4, TDRS and EVA row 6, Sullivan row 13, EASE/ACCESS row 23, Magellan row 29, Misty row 34, EVA row 47, NASA and tether row 49, TDRS row 53, EVAs row 74, EVAs row 88, Spacehab isn't allcaps'd in row 117/119, PMM and ELC in row 133, ELC row 134, the "main article" link to Cancelled Space Shuttle missions, Soyuz at the end of "Contingency missions", and 4 of the "See also"s
 * Fixed
 * If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement FLC down below. -- Pres N  21:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I will give you a review as soon as I can give it a proper in-depth look. I've addressed everything above, thank you so much. ~  Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 23:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - I reworded some of the numbering section, but I'm satisfied enough now to support. -- Pres N  21:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you much! It reads much better than my version. ~  Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments NapHit (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Kennedy Space Center served as the landing site for 78 missions while 54 missions landed at Edwards Air Force Base, California and..." commas after while and California
 * Fixed.
 * Tables needs colscopes per MOS:DTT
 * Fixed.
 * I would move the colours in the statistics table to the name column, so they are with the symbols
 * I wish I could, but I can't figure out how do do it without CSS hacks. Currently, the rowscopes override the row coloring.
 * Sources column in that table should be unsortable
 * Fixed.
 * make sure all sources that are PDFs have the parameter  added to the ref. I can see a few that are missing this
 * Fixed.
 * Thank you very much for your comments. ~  Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 22:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to support now my concerns have been dealt with. NapHit (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So full disclosure, I have my own FLC candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and I figured the best way to gain some input on that is to give some myself.


 * Lead
 * Caption displays &mbsp; for some reason?
 * Fixed, see above.
 * The term "Space Shuttle" is not linked in the lead? I was surprised at that.
 * Fixed.
 * Kennedy Space Center is linked twice in the lead
 * Fixed, see above.
 * Clarification for my benefit - All launches took place at the KSC right?
 * As far as I know, yes.


 * Table
 * The note [a] states that when there are two numbers it indicates how many astronauts they took off with and landed with. So when I see 7/7 I have to infer that it means that it's not the same seven astronauts they landed with as took off with right? otherwise ALL flights would have this? I think it would be good to clarify the note on that so we don't have to infer.
 * Fixed.
 * I would spell out EVA the first time the term is used. ESA too?
 * Fixed.
 * Mission STS-41-B, need a space between "two" and "comsats"
 * Fixed, see above.
 * Contingency missions - I am confused why this is forced to be side by side? I assume that is why it does not sort etc.? What is the logic behind this choice?
 * Truth be told, I inherited it that way and didn't want to go through the work of changing it. I tried it a single column, and I like it much better.


 * Sources
 * Are the sources listed for the row where notes "b", "d" and "e" intended to cover the statements made in those notes? They should probably be explicitly sourced in the actual note (you can use Template:refn to accomplish this)
 * Done for d and e. I didn't to b because the citations on that row are designed to cover the entire row not just the landing location.


 * So I really only have some detail issues, overall it's a great list and very close to FL standards.  MPJ  -US 14:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all of the above issues, and will get to your list as soon as I can give it proper in-dept review. Thank you much. ~  Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 20:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I am happy to say that I Support this for Featured List. Great work. MPJ  -US 21:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Source review
 * Spotchecked: 1, 7, 70, 112, 303, 309, all clean
 * Thank you.
 * Formatting:
 * The source/work wikilinking is inconsistent: You link NASA each time, but don't link pretty much anything else- Space.com, Forbes, etc. This should be consistent.
 * Fixed
 * It's Space.com, not space.com
 * Took a guess and missed. Fixed.
 * "NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project" is the work for refs 7-10, NASA or Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center is the publisher
 * Fixed.
 * Your Space.com references have authors and dates, but you haven't stuck them in the references (e.g. ref 15)
 * Fixed.
 * It's not NASA Spaceflight.com, it's NASASpaceflight, as per their page footer.
 * Fixed.
 * ref 306 - "John F. Kennedy Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration" is an odd publisher; it's just NASA or John F. Kennedy Space Center.
 * Fixed.
 * ref 308 is redirecting, and Fox News Insider would be the work, with Fox News the publisher, same for 314.
 * Fixed 308, archive.org no longer archives #314 so I tagged it. I will work on hunting down another source.
 * ref 309 the NYT isn't italicized
 * Fixed.
 * It's Time (or Time), not Time Magazine
 * Fixed.
 * -- Pres N  18:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've fixed all of your issues above, thank you much! ~ Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 01:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost done- "Time" should be in the work field and thus italicized on ref 315, Florida Today should be linked in refs 312, 316, and 318, and you have a deadlink on 314. -- Pres N  19:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed everything except the dead link. Fox News Insider changed their link archiving policy and excluded that domain, which means I don't have access to the archived edition that used to be there.  I'm working to find another similar source, but until then I'm leaving the current source as it was valid at the time I used it. ~  Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a new source to replace the dead one. Thank you much! ~  Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 01:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Source review: Passed. -- Pres N  02:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

- – SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.