Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of space stations/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 not promoted by Giants2008 19:29, 4 August 2012.

List of space stations

 * Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 06:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I took this list and split it out of space station, and now I feel that it's expanded enough to be come a featured list. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 06:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments that immediately spring to mind:
 * The list uses flags, and flags alone, to say what country the station belongs to. This is insufficient.
 * Done - I've added columns to all the tables containing country data. I also linked country names the first time they appear. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You similarly cannot rely on color alone to denote the ones that were unmanned, you have to indicate it also either with text or with a symbol.
 * Done - I've added a notation under the "Occupied", "Total Crew and Visitors", and "Manned" columns saying that this station was never manned. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is "DOS"? Why isn't it linked? Is it the Salyut program? Almaz also needs to be linked. Being linked in earlier text doesn't mean it can be skipped for a table.
 * Done - I added a notation above describing the difference between the two programs. The DOS program has no article yet, that's why I can't link it. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do only some of the launches have times? Are the :00 seconds real or just false precision? For example, your source for the time for Salyut 1 says only that it launched at 1:40 UTC, not 1:40:00. I'm not sure we need the times anyway, that's perhaps a little specific for this list.
 * Done - I've removed the times. They were too much detail, and I didn't have sources for all of them. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent use of commas for days in orbit between tables.
 * Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tiangong 1 is in a table labelled "orbiting and manned", yet has never actually been manned.
 * Done - I've changed the description above the table to be more clear. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Under cancelled projects, you give the same reason for cancellation in three different ways. This could be moved into the text and that column removed.
 * Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When the flag is replaced with a country, that should get its own column.
 * Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need the See Also section - Salyut and Skylab should be linked in the article itself, and 'space station' is literally the first link.
 * Done - I removed the unnecessary links, and converted the portal links to plain text links. I only have the portal links there now. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the above needs to be cleaned up. --Golbez (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments! Please let me know if there's any further changes you think I need. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support NapHit (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * This is one of the most interesting pages I've read on WP--great job!
 * Why, thank you. :) ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Notes section should appear before References.
 * Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Commons cat should go in "External links". And since it is the only link, you should use the inline variant.
 * Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: these 2 are completely optional and should not impact this list being promoted:
 * Lots of white space next to the ISS patch image. Don't know if anything can be done...
 * Not done - I'm sorry, I can't figure out any way to fix that. You're welcome to have a go. 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What about adding citations to the "(private)" occurences and adding the company names to the "Notes" section?
 * Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * – Lionel (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it took so long for me to get back, Internet has been iffy. I'll try to fix the optional ones later, depending on the Internet. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've handled the optional comments. Thank you for the review. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from WFC

Sorry for taking so long to return to this: apart from a brief AWB run yesterday, my activity has been patchy this month for religious reasons.

I have a lot of time for this list. The lead is absolutely perfect for a layman, and the tables go into what looks like an appropriate amount level of detail. But I think this is the sort of list where some transitional text is needed (or in plain English, longer, more detailed text in some of the sections). I don't have enough expertise to give you an exhaustive guide, but will give a couple of examples:

1. I read through the text to see how much of it covered what a space station is actually for (either in general, or a specific space station). In total, we have:


 * "Space stations are used to study the effects of long-term space flight on the human body. They also serve as a platform for extended scientific studies. ... Space stations have been used for both military and civilian purposes" in the lead, and in the body: "The Long Duration Orbital Station (DOS) program was intended for scientific research into spaceflight. The Almaz program was a secret military program that tested space reconnaissance tactics."

2. I read through the text to see how much of it covered what could be described as unique, defining or current characteristics of specific space stations, in the broadest possible sense. In total, there is:


 * "As of 2012, the International Space Station and Tiangong 1 are the only manned space stations currently in orbit. ... The duration record for a single spaceflight is 437.7 days, set by Valeriy Polyakov aboard Mir from 1994 to 1995. As of 2012, three astronauts have completed single missions of over a year, all aboard Mir", plus the first line of each section.

The lead is perfect: both of the topics I mention are sufficiently touched upon. But for a subject of this depth, technicality and variety I believe that the sub-sections should go into more specific detail about the stations. I'm afraid I don't have enough technical expertise to give you a clearer steer, but it just feels to me that an "expert" (or perhaps more appropriately, someone wanting to use this list as a gateway to learning about space stations), would be found wanting. Regrettably, for that reason I have to oppose at the moment. —WFC— 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... OK. Thank you for your kind words. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from W. D. Graham
 * There have been quite a lot of proposed space stations over the years which never made it to orbit, however only three are listed
 * I'm going based off the space stations, that's where I got the data. However, I've added the ISS incorporated stations into that table. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Completeness is one of the featured list criteria. I feel further research is needed if this list is to become featured. -- W.  D.   Graham  17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel further research is necesary, of course I can spend some time researching. However, many countries are very secretive about their space failures, so I'm not sure how much I can find.  ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The list seems to claim that "rising costs" was the cause of every cancelled programme being cancelled; this is incorrect, and not even cited for the examples given
 * Done - fixed. I've added an extra column and included references. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A general remarks column might be better -- W.  D.   Graham  17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've converted the title to remarks, and updated the data accordingly. Does that work? ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ESA and Bigelow Aerospace are not countries
 * Done - Fixed. I've converted the column to "Agency" and included the flags and then the agency name. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure commercial organisations such as Bigelow could be classed as agencies either. The USSR certainly isn't an agency. -- W.  D.   Graham  17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "agency" doesn't quite get it. How 'bout "entity", "owner", or maybe "country or entity".  Other ideas are welcome, of course.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I converted "agency" to "entity". ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the stations listed as "de-orbited" [ sic] were not deorbited; DOS-2 was never in orbit, and Skylab, Saylut 2, Kosmos 557 and Salyut 7 decayed naturally
 * I changed the section heading. If you think of a better heading, please feel free to change it. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be made clear that the three failed stations were intended to be manned
 * Done - added as a note. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Soyuz 10 seems to be counted in manned visits to Salyut 1, but not in terms of crew. This should be corrected, or it should be made clear that you are counting the docking failure as a "visit"
 * Done - fixed. Oops. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For that matter, how does the list define a "visit"? How are docking failures listed? How about launch failures? And is Soyuz T-5 listed as having visited Mir once or twice?
 * Docking failures are still visits. I defined that in the Salyut 1 row.  Yes, docking failures are listed unless I missed one.  Launch failures aren't.  Soyuz T-5 is listed as having visited Mir twice. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that made clear in the article? -- W.  D.   Graham  17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unmanned" should not be hyphenated
 * Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the way the table is split between past and current space stations, it makes the second table very short, and messes up the column widths. Could they be merged into a single table, perhaps with the active stations differentiated using a different background colour, or separated by a row in the table.
 * I'd rather not combine the two tables, as there are columns that apply to one and not the other. If things continue to go the way they're going, we'll have more rows in that table very soon. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the programme field is only in one of the tables, and that just leaves decay date. If you switch to a short date format (YYYY-MM-DD), that should save enough space to add it to both. -- W.  D.   Graham  17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the crew sizes seem to include visiting crew (eg. Mir & Salyut 7) whilst others don't (eg. ISS & Salyut 6)
 * Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. -- W.  D.   Graham  17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Durable Orbital Station" is a mistranslation, it should be "Long Duration Orbital Station"
 * Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. -- W.  D.   Graham  17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MOL was never launched; the 1966 launch was a mockup built using parts taken from Titan missiles. -- W.  D.   Graham  17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarified in the text. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, this is a very good list, however it does still need some work to meet featured list criteria -- W.  D.   Graham  22:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've addressed some of the concerns, but I have to log off now (real life calls). I'll be back later to address the other concerns. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I've addressed all of the concerns now.  Please let me know if you think of anything else. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Craigboy
 * Shouldn't NSPO be replaced with CNSA?--Craigboy (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mir's mass is currently listed as 19,800 kg but it should be 129,700 kg.--Craigboy (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed - I found a new source. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Wingtipvortex
 * "As of 2012, the International Space Station and Tiangong 1 are the only manned space stations currently in orbit." I don't like the sentence 100%. The Tiangong is not currently manned. It has been, and it likely will be again. Or maybe it is not currently crewed... Thoughts on that?
 * Fixed - How about "operational stations currently in orbit"?
 * "As of 2012, three astronauts have completed single missions of over a year, all aboard Mir." I think it would be very useful if 'three astronauts' linked to who the 3 astronauts were. Also, if they were all aboard Mir, wouldn't they be cosmonauts? Maybe not, I'm not well-informed about the Shuttle-Mir program.
 * Fixed - I've linked the names. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe also include a number of astronauts that have been to several stations and which ones. Dunno, just throwing that out there.
 * I don't think that I could include that on this list. However, I might make that into its own list. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, a little extra commentary wouldn't hurt, but maybe I'm just thinking too much 'article' and not enough 'list'
 * Fixed - I trimmed the leade some. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Space stations that have re-entered the atmosphere" may be a bit too long for a section title. How about decommissioned stations or past stations? You explain prior to the list that they have re-entered.
 * Done - I've changed the section title. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, I Support the list becoming featured once the above are addressed. It has a great intro, good images, the lists are well split up and contain good and useful information (who would have thought to find useful information in an encyclopedia :D ) and is very clean (no clutter). --19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC) WingtipvorteX  (talk)   Ø
 * Thanks, I'm glad you found the list useful. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: The timeline of space stations found in the Space Station article may have a place in the list of space stations. Just a thought. -- WingtipvorteX  (talk)   Ø  19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the timeline to the article, it's a great idea. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Refs 10, 24, 54, 60, 96, and 99 should have their publishers italicized as printed publications.
 * Done - I think I got all of them. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Numbers 96 and 99 still need the italics. You did get the others, though. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - got 'em. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 07:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes Encyclopedia Astronautica (many refs) reliable? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The jury appears to still be out on Encyclopedia Astronautica. This discussuion and this one appears to establish it as a reliable source, but other discussions have questioned that view.  I believe it's reliable for facts because it provides a biography and I'm only citing facts.  If you'd like, I can remove it and replace it with other sources. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it out for other reviewers to consider. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my internet has been iffy. I'll continue addressing concerns and update the article accordingly. Thanks for your patience. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I've hit all your concerns, feel free to make any further comments. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Image review: No copyright related problems found.  Good raise  01:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesomeness, thank you! ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 02:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.