Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rocket/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Karanacs 16:51, 30 June 2009 [1].

Rocket[edit]

Nominator(s): - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been around for a while; it's in the best shape it's ever been and probably likely to be, and we're coming up for the 40th anniversary of the manned landing on the moon. It's also a critical topic, and its important for the wikipedia that this article make FA. I appreciate this is a technical topic, and technical topics often have a harder time than most with these kinds of processes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have several issues with this article, so I'm going to oppose (changed to Strong Oppose, see below) for now, but I would be happy to support the nomination if they are resolved:
  1. Orbital speed should never be measured in Mach, as sound does not travel in a vacuum.
    The Earth's atmosphere extends all the way to the geopause, and so orbits to that altitude may not be considered a vacuum, and sound waves can propagate. Indeed, visible evidence of Earth's atmosphere can be seen around the space shuttle when orbiting, and the Shuttle is continuously losing altitude due to this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but there is no Mach value for that air density. --GW… 22:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, Mach 1/the speed of sound is determined by the average molecular speeds which in turn is related to temperature, and is essentially unrelated to pressure.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I've put {{fact}} tags onto those two figures. I also think it would be appropriate to provide values in metres per second. --GW… 23:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but you're simply wrong about this; NASA can and do define orbital speeds in terms of Mach. The speed of sound in gases is well defined even at extremely high altitudes, even well away from the Earth where the supersonic solar wind dominates and there is (for most normal purposes) what would be considered a 'vacuum' but is in fact just very low pressure gas with large mean free paths.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do not feel that linking "extremely high speed" to "hypersonic" is wholly appropriate.
    The exhaust speed of rockets meets the definition of hypersonic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So perhaps the text itself is in need of revision --GW… 22:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Man visiting the Moon" should link to Exploration of the Moon rather than Apollo program.
    That does not seem to be appropriately focussed. The text should point to highlights, but exploration of the moon includes many automated landings, which while significant accomplishments were not the highpoints.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There are too many {{main}} links to History of rocketry.
    fixed- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Highest point of altitude of its flight trajectory is 90 km." (referring to the V-2), is both grammatically and factually incorrect. Whilst most V-2s reached an apogee of about 90 kilometres on operational flights, some did go higher. The article should also mention that a V-2 made the first spaceflight in June 1944 (see Spaceflight before 1951 for further details).
    Do you have a reference for this? My understanding is that 90km was not exceeded until after WWII had finished.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try and dig one up for you. --GW… 22:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The V-2 article references "Peenemuende, Walter Dornberger, Moewig, Berlin 1985. ISBN 3-8118-4341-9". I don't have this book, so I can't confirm it, but it might help. I'll look for an online reference later. --GW… 22:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "The V-2 evolved into the American Redstone rocket, used in the early space program." implies that the US was the only country with a space programme
    I don't agree that that is implied; and in any case the V-2 is mentioned 2 paragraphs further on, in the context of Russia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding the word "US" between early and space would clear up all ambiguity. --GW… 22:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "The R-7 launched the first satellite- Sputnik, and later Yuri Gagarin-the first man into space, and the first lunar and planetary probes." It would be more appropriate to spread this out a bit. Also, the satellite was "Sputnik 1", not "Sputnik", which currently redirects to an article about the overall programme. The sentence also uses "and" too many times.
    I've changed the title to Sputnik 1.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to expand on Yuri Gagarin; he was not a rocket vehicle, and the article should be as short as possible and kept on topic; this is not an article on space exploration per se. Planetary probes I suppose are rocket vehicles, just about, so I will add a sentence somewhere about probes and wikilink to the relevant article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The article contains a mixture of both "US" and "U.S." as abbreviations for the United States. Per the Manual of Style, only "US" (without the dots) should be used.
    Fixed, although I can't do anything about reference titles or for that matter the registered trademark text at the bottom of the article page ;-).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "These epoch marking events" is not neutral
  10. The article contains a mixture of British and American English. I would say British English is slightly more common in the article, but I'm not certain.
    Please be more specific.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See British and American spelling differences. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. In some places imperial units are listed before metric units, and in other places, the metric units are listed first. The metric units should be listed first as it is a scientific article.
    The MOS is somewhat conflicted. The use of imperial units seem to relate to English work done well before the advent of the SI system, on balance I feel these should be left as per the original; conversions have been provided.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "Apollo" was not a "launch vehicle"
    That has been resolved. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Use of the word "our" in the "current day" section is inappropriate. "Modern day" would probably also be a better title for that section.
    This has been resolved. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, marked that as resolved by mistake. Only half the point has been addressed. --GW… 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to change that title. I disagree that that is a desirable change and it's not remotely FA gating.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "Post Cold War"? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. "However, in the minds of much of the public, the most important use of rockets is perhaps manned spaceflight." is inappropriate speculation/WP:WEASEL
  15. "the Soyuz for orbital tourism" implies that it was desiged to carry tourists, or that that is its primary purpose.
    I do not feel that that is implied, only that it is used for that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only for a small minority of flights. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really a small minority of current flights, and the question is about trends in any case.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "SpaceShipOne for suborbital tourism" implies that it was used commercially. It only ever made three spaceflights, none with a tourist aboard.
    Nevertheless these were flights made under the X-prize that was intended to promote space tourism, and the Futron report is given as a reference.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I also fail to see a sufficient connection between tourism via the Soyuz and SS1 spacecraft, and rockets, to warrant this paragraph's inclusion.
  18. "may show a trend towards greater commercialisation of manned rocketry." is further speculation
    The speculation is referenced to the Futron report, as such it is appropriate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. The "types" section is entirely unreferenced
    I have added references to a variety of rocket vehicle types.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The references you have provided are insufficient. --GW… 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Not all rockets have inbuilt stabilisation systems, some are spin-stabilised at launch.
    The word used is 'device'. Spin stabilisation is still a device. The word device does not necessarily denote any hardware. All rockets need some device for at least some degree of stabilisation.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that is acceptable. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. "Rocket propellant is mass that is stored, usually in some form of propellant tank" - solid rockets do not have tanks
    I feel that this is inappropriate, but I added casing anyway. A casing is a form of pressure vessel, and IMO may be quite reasonably considered to be a form of propellant tank.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never heard a vessel used to house solid propellent called a "tank", but since you've changed it anyway, this is resolved. --GW… 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. The liquid engines on the Space Shuttle are called Space Shuttle Main Engines, or SSMEs.
    ????- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Space Shuttle Atlantis during launch phase, showing both solid (SRBs) and liquid fueled (Shuttle) rocket engines in use.". I would also advise linking "Atlantis", or better still, replacing the whole name of the shuttle with "{{OV|104}}" --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SRB is a general industry term for ground ignited solid rockets. I do not believe that the change you suggest would improve the article for the audience, and the details of that particular launch system can be found anyway at the linked article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wolfkeeper, can you please try to preserve the bullet points in your responses? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is with the "Shuttle" engines, not the SRBs. --GW… 00:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no error here, nor does it violate any processes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. "As a side effect the pressures act on the exhaust in the opposite direction and accelerate this to very high speeds (in accordance with Newton's Third Law)." would read better if the parenthesised section were presented as an additional clause instead.
  24. Most of the examples of rockets shown in the "mass ratios" section are American. This makes the section unrepresentative.
    I think you're taking the concept of 'representative' further than it really is supposed to go- balance in articles is about the overall article, not such that each and every section having to be balanced in detail; and it's not a nationalistic thing, it's about notability.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. "the rocket sheds excess weight...to reduce its weight" - do I really need to comment on this?
    Resolved. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. The meanings of some of the symbols in the equations are not sufficiently explained.
    Please identify which ones are not- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. The "Safety, reliability and accidents" section is too short, and entirely unreferenced
  28. The lead does not adequately summarise the contents of the article
    Leads are difficult to write. In what sense are you finding it not adequate?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you read WP:LEAD. --GW… 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I helped write WP:LEAD, in what way are you finding it inadequate?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. "H. Julian Allen and A. J. Eggers, Jr. of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)" does not explain which nation's "National Advisory committee for Aeronautics" they were working for.
    I disagree since it was linked anyway, but whatever, done.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved. --GW… 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. The "Science & Research" secion has too many hatnotes.
  31. Can you check the article does not confuse weight and mass
    Seems to be OK; it would be inappropriate to change things like thrust to weight ratio to be thrust to mass ratio.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Can a few more images of non-US rockets be added. I know it is quite hard to find suitable ones, but the current images make the article slightly too slanted towards the USA.
    Well, the very first and very prominent picture is that of a Soyuz, and we have others including V2s and so forth at other points. We also have an audience that are likely to be familiar with the Saturn V and Shuttle, on balance we need to primarily consider what the audience wants, while educating more widely.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. There should be a section on alternatives.
    No. This article is about rockets, that is only a see-also topic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that it is a valid topic in the interests of neutrality. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that would be off-topic. The topic is rockets. The topic is not space-launch except and insofar as it relates to rockets.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Could the types section be made more detailed? It reads almost like a see also section.
    Probably not a good idea IMO; rocket is a very general article and these are all general subtypes of rockets.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, it should probably be converted to prose. --GW… 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. "Space rockets" is not a synonym for "launch vehicle".
    I believe that they are synonymous. I don't think, for example, DC-X or Quad (rocket) are normally considered launch vehicles; (although they are launched and they are vehicles, but I think that is used as a phrase.)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but to give two examples, Skylark and Black Brant are both spacegoing, but not normally considered "launch vehicles". --GW… 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that the convention is that they historically are correctly described as either launch vehicles or space vehicles. I think the term 'launch vehicle' implies launching into space, which these are capable of.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However it is usually used to imply launching into orbit, which the latter two are not capable of. --GW… 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is most commonly seen in that context, but that does not seem to be the true meaning.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably some other issues, but that will do for now. I would like to see this as an FA, and as I previously stated, I would be happy to support if these issues can be addressed. --GW… 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't strike other people's comments. --GW… 22:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my above !vote to strong oppose due to the nominator's attitude towards some of the basic issues in the article. I inserted a number of citation needed tags into a particularly poorly referenced section of the article, which he removed without adding citations. I subsequently added two further tags, with clear explanations of why citations were needed, to two particularly dubious statements in the article. He removed one of these with an edit summary of "FFS", which in the absence of any explanation, I am interpreting to mean "for fuck's sake" (which is just about how I feel about this nomination). I feel that there may be a slight issue of WP:OWN here, and in light of the nominator's unwillingness to follow even basic policies (such as referencing disputed statements), I feel there is no way forward for this FAC. --GW… 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not strike reviewer comments: reviewers strike comments when they are satiisfied with changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Quite a few problems here.

  • Whatever the case of that is, it's from NASA, and it's on their history site, and the original picture is highly likely to be out of copyright. Unless you have anything more concrete, I don't consider this to be a gating issue.
  • It's almost certainly incorrectly tagged; that is a "gating issue". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Genghis Khan.jpg is missing quite a bit of information. I appreciate that some of this information may no longer be available, but at the very least a general date range should be in there.
  • The painting is out of copyright, and is claimed as a photo by the uploader. This does not seem to be a gating issue.
  • If you can't provide a gate range, how do you know it's out of copyright? I'm sure it is, but if we're claiming that it's out of copyright owing to its age, we need to know at least something about its age. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tsiolkovsky.jpg has neither author information nor date of publication, at least one of which is needed to support the public domain claim being made.
  • But not predating NACA. NACA got rolled into NASA, and would have inherited the material.
  • Ah, thank you. File:AMBA Pioneers.jpg seems to be a work of the U.S. Army, based on the source, which would put it in the public domain, but would also make it incorrectly tagged. Is this correct (in which case I can fix the tag), or am I mistaken? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis is File:Mk 2.jpg claimed to be a work of the federal government? There is no author information.
  • Its use here as part of an educational resource: [4] makes it work of the federal government.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at the page it was on and updated the information, It's actually a NASA image, and credited as such on the bottom of the page I've linked. Hohum (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis is File:Xmim-115a.jpg claimed to be the work of a U.S. army employee? There is nothing in the source provided that would support that.
  • The date on File:Bumper.jpg is incorrect and, once again, we have a photograph that is claimed to have been created by NASA but which predates NASA.
  • It's going to be NACA again.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, just clarify that on the image description page (and might as well provide the date, etc., for completion, since you know it). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are already mentioned at Delta-v budget, but we can copy them in without a problem.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are given in the article anyway.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did it, based on the equations already in the text.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just provide all of the relevant information on the image description pages, then, and all should be well. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The equation used to produce the image is given in the text associated with that image in the article already; this is not gating on this article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear that File:Artistsconcept separation.jpg is a work of NASA; it certainly seems to be housed in a NASA gallery and hosted on NASA's website, but on that website it says that it's the work of MSFC Graphics: [5] Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the two descriptions that you list as "copyvios" are actually PD text as they appear on a NASA website. --GW… 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite so; I should have realized that. Apologies. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sadly, this is an engaging and well written article. But, large blocks of text lack citations. The image placement is problematic causing text squashing and white-space. Other minor issues are:

  • Here " The vehicle was only different in details from most modern rockets, with turbopumps, inertial guidance and many other features" the use of "only" and "many" is contradictory.
  • I think it should be "slave labourers".
  • Here "Often the propellant is a kind of fuel which is burned with an oxidizer to produce large volumes of very hot gas" - why "kind of fuel"?
  • Specific impulse needs defining and not just a link. And, there seems to be two definitions of delta V:
  1. The delta-v capacity of a rocket is the theoretical total change in velocity that a rocket can achieve without any external interference (without air drag or gravity or other forces).
  2. Often, the required velocity (delta-v) for a mission is unattainable by any single rocket.
  • One is a vehicle's capacity, the other is how much you need for a particular journey. I don't see the problem, they're both delta-v.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article requires more work, which I doubt can be done in a reasonable time. Graham Colm Talk 08:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary these do not seem to be major problems to me in any way, and can be dealt with in only a few hours work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this article and would be pleased to see it promoted to FA, but the lack of citations, and the format of the extant ones is a big problem. I cannot see this being resolved quickly, given that each additional reference will need to be verified by an independent reviewer. My advice (but I do not want to seem patronising) is to withdraw this nomination to allow time to find reliable sources. My feeling—having reviewed over 270 FACs—is that the article will not be promoted unless the lack of reliable sources is seriously addressed. Often withdrawn, but subsequently renominated, articles achieve FA standard more quickly than FACs that are debated here for weeks. Graham Colm Talk 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with this; the issues you refer to are uncomplicated, and the amount of work is less if we complete this FAC process now than if we repeat it at a later date.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're better now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely WP:CITE#Citation templates is about citation styles not necessarily templates? Template:Citation and the alternative Template:Cite book et al., give the same output, anchors etc. I had started to work on rationalizing the style to using short, neat template:harvnb inline references, which give clickable links in the references section which then link to anchors in the bibliography section. Hohum (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rocket/archive1&oldid=1136095755"