Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 in spaceflight/archive1

===2008 in spaceflight===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some suggestions on how to improve it, and others like it. I would be particularly interested in:
 * Ideas for what to put in the lead of the article
 * Comments on the general appearance, layout and content of the article
 * Suggestions for content that could be added to the article
 * Any way that images could be added to the article

Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page 10:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/2008 in spaceflight/archive1. Comment

My only real complaint is the size of the article; it sometimes takes quite long to load. A possible solution would to be move the missile test launches to a separate article. Another suggestion that I have is that the lead section should include some kind of concise definition of Spaceflight. Other than that, it's a great article. Offliner (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that length is a problem, but I have objections to any way of splitting it that I can think of. In the case of splitting off missile tests, I think that anything that results in two concurrent lists is confusing, and there would be some confusion in providing a suitable definition of "missile". --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A redesign of the article, based partly on the comments made here so far, is available at WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/2009Format/eg. --G W … 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to automated peer review

 * The quoted text below was taken from the automated peer review page.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
 * I agree that there should be a lead section, and one of the reasons that this review is being conducted is to get ideas for what to include in it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT. Guides recommend having greater than 3% words in links, but be sure not to overlink words just to add more links.
 * Due to the format of the article, the large number of links is necessary. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
 * I agree that some images are required, however it would be difficult to integrate them into the article in its current format. I am hoping that this review will give some clues as to how this can be achieved. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.
 * This is a good idea, and I will look into it. Perhaps an image of one of the more significant events of the year. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article.
 * There is not currently a suitable infobox. It might be possible to make one, which could contain summary information on the year (eg. number of orbital launches, number of recorded sub-orbital launches, success rates, number of manned flights, etc.) If implemented correctly, it could complement the lead section when it is added. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 36207DG, use 36207 DG, which when you are editing the page, should look like: <tt>36207&amp;nbsp;DG</tt>.
 * That is not a unit of measurement. It is a NASA flight designation, and part of the title of a webpage which was being cited. It would be inappropriate to change it, and this guideline does not apply to it. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth. Specifically, an example is 36.207 DG.
 * As above. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
 * It is impossible to split the article without causing serious complications. See my response to one of the comments in the first section. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), categorize (A) (British: categorise), programme (B) (American: program ).
 * The article is in British English, however several proper nouns for US organisations, projects, and places are used, (eg Kennedy Space Center and Missile Defense Agency) and it would be inappropriate to change them. The word "categorized" is part of a URL, so the issue with changing that is obvious. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
 * It is usually best for someone who hasn't been one of the principal editors on a page to conduct this, as they might spot things that someone who has been working closely with the page for the last two years (such as myself) could have become used to, and hence missed. Would anyone like to volunteer? --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Review by Wronkiew

 * The article needs a lead section. For content, I would take a look at some year in review articles and write a couple of paragraphs about the significant events. Just make sure everything in the lead is documented later in the article. Some examples:
 * I am unhappy about the width of the launch table. There are a couple ways you could go to improve this. One would be to collapse the table into a more complicated format like that seen in International Space Station. The other would be to keep the width, but make the table more interactive by adding sorting capabilities.
 * The size of the launch table makes it difficult to discern overall themes, which is important for a timeline article like this. You might consider splitting it up into multiple tables for sub-orbital, orbital, and interplanetary missions. Also maybe government and commercial.
 * I think you could do without launch times in the first column.
 * Some possible illustrations for the article could be pie charts showing launches by country or by purpose, and line charts comparing activity in space against previous years.
 * I wouldn't put more images in the already bloated table, but if you started the launch section with a paragraph or two talking about the more significant events, some launch photos could appear there. Same with the other sections. For the deep space section, obviously the 40th flyby of Titan doesn't need a photo, but a photo from MESSENGER or Phoenix would illustrate the significant events of the year.
 * Phrases shouldn't end with a period, but sentences should. This applies to tables as well. For an example of what not to do, see the 11 February spacewalk remark.
 * If you make all your tables sortable, you can use the dts template to correctly sort dates.
 * Encyclopedia Astronautica and JSR may not be reliable sources. I only mention this because I had trouble with these two at FAC.
 * The Baalke reference seems to have some extra characters in the note.
 * Some footnotes place the date in parentheses, while others have the date at the end, just before the accessdate. These should be consistent.
 * I would like to have seen a table just for human spaceflights in 2008, though I can see how this would be tricky. Perhaps a table of humans launched and humans returned. Or maybe just totals per country.
 * If this article gets too long, the launches table could be split out into a new article, and the summary could take its place.
 * Some launches may be non-notable, particularly if the only reference to them is in a database.
 * Some footnotes place the date in parentheses, while others have the date at the end, just before the accessdate. These should be consistent.
 * I would like to have seen a table just for human spaceflights in 2008, though I can see how this would be tricky. Perhaps a table of humans launched and humans returned. Or maybe just totals per country.
 * If this article gets too long, the launches table could be split out into a new article, and the summary could take its place.
 * Some launches may be non-notable, particularly if the only reference to them is in a database.

Response
Thanks for the review. I like to reply to every point that is made, so I'll go over each one individually.
 * 1) As I have stated previously, I acknowledge the need for a lead section, and I'm sure the articles you have provided will be useful in creating one.
 * 2) I like the format used in the International Space Station article, and while I am not sure that it will work on this scale, I will look into it. With regard to sorting, I don't think the difficulty of ensuring that it works properly with the flag icons and multiple spacecraft names would justify the small benefit of being able to sort the list. I agree that table width is a problem.
 * 3) I feel that it is also important to keep timelines in chronological order, so I dislike any form of split that would take the timeline out of chronological order.
 * 4) I feel that launch times are important to the article, particularly where there are multiple launches on the same day, or where the date is different in different timezones. I really can't see an advantage to removing them.
 * 5) There is a graph of activity since 1957, in the main article Timeline of spaceflight. I think that is the best place to put that. I'll look into creating some of the other graphs that you have suggested, which could be placed in the orbital launch summary section.
 * 6) I agree with this, and I will try to add some images of key events. If the article can be changed to a format similar to the ISS article, then it might also be possible to integrate some articles into the table itself.
 * 7) I will look into this, and try to correct it.
 * 8) As I stated above, I can't see much of an advantage to sorting it, but if this is implemented, I will try to use that template.
 * 9) I've never had any problems with them, and they are two of the only three nearly comprehensive sources that I am aware of.
 * 10) That was an HTML comment. I'm not sure why it was displaying, but I think it was a note I'd put in to draw attention to that item when I was going over the article at a later date (which I obviously never did). A quick check revealed that the source article had been moved to a different URL, which was probably what I needed to look at.
 * 11) I believe that is a feature of, and should be taken up on the appropriate talk page.
 * 12) That could be quite useful. I'll look into how it could be implemented. Alternatively, a link to List of human spaceflights, 2000s could be provided.
 * 13) I think that if the launches table was in an article on its own, it would still be too large.
 * 14) This has already been discussed, and it was decided that a fixed notability criteria was needed. This was determined to be anything that left, or was intended to have left, the Earth's atmosphere. This was later amended to state anything that crossed or was intended to cross the Kármán line, in order to further eliminate confusion. Whilst some of the sub-orbital flights might not be notable enough for an article in their own right, they are considered notable enough to include in a list. See Articles for deletion/List of scheduled rocket launches for further details.
 * Thank you for your review, and the suggestions that you have made will be used to improve the articles in question. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 12:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)