Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NERVA/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 June 2020 [1].
NERVA[edit]
This article is about NERVA, the NASA nuclear rocket project. Unlike its forerunner, Project Rover, it developed entire engines and not just reactors for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Therapyisgood[edit]
For what it's worth I don't know what it's about from the lead section. It lists dates and that it was considered successful but I truly have no idea what it did, what those goals were or why it was successful from the lead (how it was tested, why it was needed, etc.). In my opinion it wasn't that successful if it never launched anything. It doesn't really cover the "origins" section either. Also none of the statistics from the engine infobox are covered in the lead, how it compares with other engines, etc.
Looking onward, the article from what I can tell is well-written overall but the lead isn't great in my opinion. I'll list some other comments I have:
| Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
* In December 1953, it was published in Oak Ridge's Journal of Reactor Science and Technology. While still classified, this gave it a wider circulation. was the Oak Ridge Journal of Reactor Science and Technology classified as well? Or was the paper leaked?
Therapyisgood (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC) |
Comments from Vanamonde93[edit]
- As I noted when reviewing Project Rover at FAC, that article had a lot of redundancies with this one. That might be expected if one was an overview of a broader topic, but it's not; they're almost-but-not-quite identical topics. Having two FAs with the same content does not feel right to me. This isn't made explicit in the criteria, but it seems to me that it's common sense; articles that are redundant in this way usually get dealt with long before they appear at FAC. Given that it's a potentially fuzzy area, I'd like to hear from @FAC coordinators: the coordinators what weight they would give this concern, should it rise to the level of an "oppose". Vanamonde (Talk) 01:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is certainly overlap in the Origins section, and the Project Rover section is a summary of that article. The two articles diverge thereafter. The structure has been established for a long time, with them assuming their current form structurally by 2010. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are other featured articles with substantial overlap, such as those on various warships of the same class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Your claim that the articles diverge after the first two sections is inaccurate. There is substantial overlap in "transfer to NASA" (corresponding to a section of the same title in the other article); "Kiwi" (corresponding to a section of the same name in the other article); "Cancellation"; and "Post-NERVA research" (corresponding to "Legacy" in the other article). They even use identical sentences in some places. The SNPO subsection has material that's scattered across the Project Rover article. As far as I can see, the "NERVA NRX" and "NERVA XE" are the only ones that are entirely unique to this article; that's two subsections of eleven. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would consider this a valid oppose reason. I'm not sure that others would, but I would take it seriously. Apologies for the late reply, just getting back after a computer failure. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Probably the worst possible time for a computer failure, but glad you're okay. I wasn't trying to game the system, only to bring both articles up to FAC standard. As Vanamonde93 says, they are almost-but-not-quite identical topics. The only alternative I can think of is to merge the two articles, but I doubt that there would be support for that. If the article cannot be promoted, then the nomination will have to be archived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would consider this a valid oppose reason. I'm not sure that others would, but I would take it seriously. Apologies for the late reply, just getting back after a computer failure. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Your claim that the articles diverge after the first two sections is inaccurate. There is substantial overlap in "transfer to NASA" (corresponding to a section of the same title in the other article); "Kiwi" (corresponding to a section of the same name in the other article); "Cancellation"; and "Post-NERVA research" (corresponding to "Legacy" in the other article). They even use identical sentences in some places. The SNPO subsection has material that's scattered across the Project Rover article. As far as I can see, the "NERVA NRX" and "NERVA XE" are the only ones that are entirely unique to this article; that's two subsections of eleven. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is certainly overlap in the Origins section, and the Project Rover section is a summary of that article. The two articles diverge thereafter. The structure has been established for a long time, with them assuming their current form structurally by 2010. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are other featured articles with substantial overlap, such as those on various warships of the same class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.