Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of space telescopes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted 14:39, 10 March 2008.

List of space telescopes[edit]

Self-nom. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few quick comments (from a very quick look at the article):
(1) What does "Completed" signify in the tables? (I think it means "stopped functioning" or "removed from service." Is there another term that would more clearly describe this?)
(2) I dislike the 90% font-size setting for the tables. Why make the main content of the article harder to read?
(3) The heading "Ref(s)" seems unduly abbreviated. Is this used in other featured lists?
--Orlady (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some quick replies:
(1) It unfortunately means a number of things, ranging from "funding terminated" to "Something went funny and broke the telescope" to "Fell out of the sky". "Completed" was the best word I could come up with: I would welcome any other suggestions.
(2) The formatting was taken directly from Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester, itself taken from the Featured List Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. Having it at 100% makes the columns a bit too wide for my screen (1440 pixels)...
(3) See (2).
Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment Wow! This is a shockingly good list! Very nice work. I only have a few minor suggestions. I believe that the mid-sized dahses used (–) to denote lack of data should be actually be the long dash (—). Minor, I know, but grammatically speaking I believe the mid-sized one is meant to be used in sentences, while the long one is meant to be used by itself in tables. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this). Also, the in-line citations, while plentiful and well done, need a tiny bit of work. Mainly, wherever possible publisher values should be presented. Also, only wikilink a publisher in the first citation it's mentioned. NASA, for isntance, is linked everytime. Like I said, fairly minor suggestions. Drewcifer (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The tables now use mdash rather than ndash. I've removed the overzealous linking to NASA, and added in publisher information in all but two cases (those have author information instead). Mike Peel (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better. All the edits made so far have definately been improvements. I particularly like the little bit of introductory prose in each section. But why don't all the sections have that? Even if its a sentence or two, it would help make the list much more ledgeable to a layman such as myself. Also, another complaint about the publisher values in the citations, I think that you should be wary of abbreviations. I suppose NASA is ok (since it's article is named after the abbreviation, not the full title), but I'm not sure about ESA and MIT and NOAO. Those should probably be spelled out. And lastly, an external links section would be good. Drewcifer (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the sections will have summaries; they're just taking time for me to write. I don't like external links sections, as they aren't generally necessary and invite spam, so I won't be adding one. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sections now have summaries. I've removed all of the abbreviations in the publisher entries save for NASA, ESA and JAXA, which I think are well known enough (and those abbreviations are used elsewhere in the list). Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

  • A brief explaination of what a Gamma ray telescope, X-ray telescope, Ultraviolet telescope, particle detection, gravitational waves etc is/does/why at the beginning of each section would be nice, as I and I'm sure many others, don't know the difference or even that there are different types.
  • Why aren't telescopes that look solely in our solar system omitted? They're still space telescopes afterall.
  • I was wary that this page is very long (>60kb), and that it would be much longer if I included those (>100kb). I plan to create another list at some point dealing with those, looking at solar telescopes, then each planet / other object individually, in a similar way to how this page lists telescopes according to wavelength. It seemed to me like a good division. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good enough for me, then.
  • There are a lot of red wikilinks, and I'd like to see them turned blue, by either creating stubs for them, or at a push, pointing them to a section of an appropriate article.
  • I'd also like to see this. I've linked as many as I could find information about on Wikipedia; I'll work on creating stubs for the others over the next few days, when I get the time. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "Completed" mean? The telescope isn't in use any more? Wouldn't "decommissioned" be a better term if that's the case?
    • Nevermind. I saw the comments above. Perhaps "terminated" would work? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 08:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the table headers blue? They look like wikilinks.
  • The sortability of "Location" is all messed up. The first table for example, with the arrow pointing down, it starts from "639–153,000 km", followed by "600 km", "590–650", then it goes in order, until the last entry, "2,000–200,000 km". I'm not sure because I've never worked with sortable tables but I think this is because instead of 639000 it's abbreviate to 639. And I think the commas might have something to do with it.
    • Additionally, Solar orbit measurements come in as smaller than Earth orbit measurements, because, for example in Infrared, its sorting "0.98" against 1000".
  • Why are the measurements only in metric? {{convert}} should be used unless all countries (including the U.S. which usually uses imperial measurements) use metric for this kind of thing. And even then I'd still be inclined to use it.
  • After the metric vs. imperial messup that caused the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter, I'd imagine imperial units are taboo with satellites... Also, adding them would double the length of the Location field, pushing everything onto two lines, which would IMO look rather messy. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Messy, perhaps. Accessible to all, yes. Let's wait and find out what other reviewers think. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoing Drewcifer, there are not only –es instead of —es, but also -es being used.
  • I think that these are now fixed; if they are not, please could you point out some examples? Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to be all done.
  • "Earth orbit" vs. "Earth Orbit"
  • I believe that "Earth orbit" is correct; I've changed the one instance of "Earth Orbit" to this. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some dates only the month and year, or only year? Is it not available, or you don't know it?
  • It means that I haven't been able to find it. If you can find any of them, then please add them... Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I wouldn't really know where to look, but I'll certainally try.
  • The ones that haven't launched yet should probably be put in their own section (at the end), with an additional column stating which type (gamma, xray etc).
  • I'm afraid that I don't like this idea, as I much prefer them being in the correct frequency section. That way you can see all of the previous, present and future missions in the frequency range (typically meaning the type of telescope) at once. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm.. I'd still like to see it done, but again, let's see what other reviewers think. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "(~1 AU; trailing Earth)" mean under "Gravitiatonal waves"? Should the squiggly line be a negative sign?
  • It means approximately. I've changed it to be more clear now. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All issues resolved, and you're probably right about keeping the future missions as they are. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: your earlier question about why solar system telescopes are not included: I've just come across List of Solar System probes, which deals with missions within our solar system, and have linked to that from the introduction of this article. Mike Peel (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see many good changes to this list. One additional change I would like to see in the table headers is to change "Launched" to "Launch date", in consideration of the fact that some of these dates are in the future. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is it a list of space telescopes or astronomical space telescopes? In other words, is the title right, the lead right or are they synonymous?
  • I thought that they were synonymous: the only exception might be if you count spy satellites as telescopes. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why the various frequency ranges are capitalised.
  • " separately in each. " reads a little strangely (to me).
  • "Space telescopes that collect cosmic ray nuclei and/or electrons are also included, under "Particle detection", as well as instruments that aim to detect gravitational waves, under "Gravitational waves". " - not sure you need this sentence in its current form. Perhaps just say that they are included and then in the relevant sections expand what is meant by the generic heading.
  • Why are periapsis and apoapsis capitalised?
  • "but it these cases" - in these cases?
  • Gamma-ray or Gamma ray?
  • It's a matter of personal choice, methinks. I've gone for Gamma ray, unless the dash is built into the name of something. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced even myself, but you ought to consider imperial units converted from the metric ones as well...
  • Captions which are fragments should not end with full stops.
  • Left align the name column, it currently looks pretty grim.
  • Location sorts badly - presumably it should sort in increasing/decreasing distance. It doesn't at the moment! In fact, I'd consider just making two columns, one for the periapsis and one for the apoapsis. Then they'd sort perfectly.
  • Why abbreviate to AGN when you never use it again?
  • Dark Universe observatory has no launch or termination date. Why? And the Dark Energy Space telescope...
  • The missions are being planned, but I haven't managed to find launch dates for them yet. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 191709 - 191,709 is preferred.
  • "NASA & ISAS" vs "SRC / NASA" - either & or / but not both (unless they mean something different).
  • Sorry, they should have all been "&" - and should be fixed. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use non-breaking spaces between values and their units.
  • I think that these are now in place where needed. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21400 - 21,400.
  • Might just be me or the time I'm trying to do it but the nasa.gov links all timeout...
  • They all worked fine for me at some point over the last few days... Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some things to consider and probably discuss before I'm happy to support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • So to summarise, it now needs work on the sortability (or double columns?) for the peri- and apo-apsis. I'm also concerned over the planned missions without dates just having em-dashes. It'd be worth adding a footnote to explain what that means. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peri- and apo-apsis are sorting correctly now. I think that they're best as one column, otherwise they would need to be three ("Earth orbit", peri- and apo-), which seems OTT. How about if something like "Future" is put into the launch date of planned missions with no other date? Mike Peel (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you really need some kind of footnote there or at least replace with Future or TBA or something, whatever's most appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Location column now sorts properly. I believe that there are two issues from the above that remain unresolved. The first is the red links, which I will create new articles for over time, but I'm not sure when I will get the time. The second is whether or not two units of measurement should be present - imperial and metric. At present it only uses metric, and I'm inclined to leave it that way. Does anyone think that imperial units should be used as well? If so, why? Mike Peel (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because, Wikipedia should be accessible to all users. Americans use imperial measurements. A lot of British still use them, and I'm sure many more countries around the world do too. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since distances in space are not something that people measure on a daily basis, I'm not sure that it's important (or even particularly helpful) to provide unit conversions here. WP:UNITS says conversions should generally be provided, but it makes an exception for "articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units," in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked. (The links are provided in the intro to the subject article.) I think this is an instance where conversion is not necessary, but adding conversions would not hurt anything. --Orlady (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A nicely done list. --Orlady (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that the lead misses a little bit history, how space telescopes were beginning to be used, how they diversified, future trends. You should also include the number currently in orbit, active, to be launched, and what happens to terminated satellites. Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2008 (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_list_candidates/List_of_space_telescopes&oldid=1126721194"