Talk:Vega flight VV16

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Sure, create an article on this. But I mean, provide more information please. Short articles like these are kind of embarrassing for Wikipedia, in my opinion..

Sam-2727 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on recent edits[edit]

To editor CRS-20: Hi! Thanks for contributing to the article. I have several comments on your recent edits:

I think "SSMS PoC Flight" should be written "SSMS PoC flight", just like "Vega flight VV16": "SSMS" and "PoC" are acronyms, while "flight" is just a noun and should normally not be capitalised.
Even if it is not strictly necessary, the spaces in tags like "<ref name="ArianeLaunchKit" />" were intentional.
The "&" in tables is allowed, to save space for instance. But "and" is fine as well, fine to leave them as is.
Regarding the use of Template:PD-notice, it is not true that the article contains text from the sources. They are only used as references, but not paraphrased.
Also, it is incorrect to say that reference "EsaWeb1" is in the public domain! Contrarily to NOAA, ESA is not a US federal agency and its work is not automatically in the public domain.

Please let me know what you think.

Cheers,

benrem (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"SSMS PoC Flight" (see Lauch Kit Arianespace)
Space not necessary
OK
Template:PD-notice, so put them in "External links"
www.esa.int is public domain since February 2018 or 2019.

Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia manual of style (MOS:CAPS) applies here.
OK
OK
They are references, rather than external links. The statement "This article incorporates text from this source" is not true and should not be present. Moreover, the fact that they are on US federal agencies websites does not mean that they are in the public domain. In this case, they are not a work of these agencies but of a private company. They are not even in the public domain... The template should be removed.
The ESA website is not in the public domain. If you refer to this article [1], you can read that it "adopted an Open Access policy", which is completely different from releasing its website in the public domain. It means that it is working towards releasing most of its content under the Creative Commons IGO license, but it is very different from actually releasing the website in the public domain. Be careful about this as it could lead to copyright infringements!

Kind regards,

benrem (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editors Canterbury Tail and Oregon Joe: The infobox image should have "| upright = yes" for consistency with the other articles in the series. User:Oregon Joe was right when reverting it.

benrem (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Joe is a new account going around just randomly reverting. If you wish to put it back in, feel free. Canterbury Tail talk 20:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, kind of a beginner's luck then... I will do that. Thanks. benrem (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]