Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Spaceflight before 1951/archive1

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 by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Spaceflight before 1951[edit]

Spaceflight before 1951 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive and fundamental. I'd also like to get consensus on frequency of linked vs. unlined definitions. Neopeius (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

  • Dates are a mixture of M-D-Y and D-M-Y
    Will hunt down and make consistent
    Fixed.
    Look at 1942 and 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the entries are missing citations:
    20 June, 14 September, 7, 9 7 December 1944; all of 1946; etc
    Yes, I need to make a final look through.
    Please look again. Every entry has at least one citation. The trick is where to put them when they refer to the whole document. In general, I put them after "remarks" since that's the final displayed entry on the left.
    Put them all in the remarks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The only time I don't is if there's nothing in the remarks -- it creates a blank line with just a citation number in it.
  • 20 June 1944, 10, 29 May 1945, 13, 28 June 1945, 9, 19, 30 July 1945 etc
  • There are a lot of Template:351–352 (V-2 NO. 15) type red links. Are these supposed to be page numbers?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: They are, thanks. I'll go through and fix them. My biggest question is this: in the actual chronology, should I link every item (rocket, launch pad, etc.) or just the first appearance in each year? --Neopeius (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just the first occurrence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed rp errors and first links.
@Hawkeye7:Fixing now, thank you. What do you think of article text and the summary at the bottom? --Neopeius (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think my article is now in shape for a deep dive. I added the British 1945 Backfire V-2 launches too.
Did you know there is a complete V-2 on its mobile launcher just down the road? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7:I did not. Whereabouts are you? :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is Canberra. You can see the V-2 here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh neat! Hey, are you familiar with Kerrie Dougherty? She's a friend of mine. Wonderful person. --Neopeius (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Make you a deal -- if you finish your review of this article, I'll GA review the behemoth that is Galileo_(spacecraft) :) --Neopeius (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four UK launches are in the summary, but not the table. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)'[reply]
Fixed, thank you. :) Hawkeye7

The template down the bottom looks weird. Suggest making a ribbon version, or moving it to below the infobox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Do you support this article for FAC? --Neopeius (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I Support it for FLC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Smartie. :) Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Balon Greyjoy[edit]

  • I would remove the pie chart from the country breakdown; the information is already clear from the country table since there are only three entries.

@Balon Greyjoy: I shall take it under advisement. :) I wanted all my pages to have the pretty pie chart for consistency with the other timeline pages...

  • The sentence starting "By 1944" has a reference for that year only; I'm confused why that needs a reference if the separate record information has its own reference.
So, this is complicated. :) Dornberger's book talks about the flight but doesn't say when it was. The other reference suggests it was in 1944. That said, now that I've found a better reference for the actual flight, I've fixed it.
  • "began development of their own heavy sounding rocket" I think that should be "its own heavy sounding"
Navies are people too! Okay, fixed.
  • "The Soviet Union also launched a series of captured V-2s in 1947. These flights, totalling 11," Why not combine this to say "The Soviet Union launched 11 captured V-2s in 1947..."
Because your version is better. Fixed.
  • "and the rocket was deployed for battle operations in 1950" Battle operations makes it sound like this is a tactical and short-range missile; I'm assuming something this powerful would be a strategic weapon, not something fired in a battle.
Changed to "combat"
I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I think using "combat" is an aggressive word; looking through the list of launches it doesn't look like the R-1 was ever used in combat. Maybe change to "military operations" to demonstrate that it was ready to be used as a weapon, but it was never used in a violent manner.
  • I would remove "ultimately" as its sufficient to say that it was never developed.
fixed
  • I think there should be a comma after the Viking 5 launch date
Apparently, with the European style of dating, commas are not needed after the year. The source I found on it specifically said, "This will look weird to American readers." If you find a source to the contrary, please let me know!
  • "measure the extremely low air densities" I woud remove "extremely" and probably even "low," as its not like a vacuum was something people didn't know about until space travel, and its only 1 atmosphere away from what we have on the surface.
Clever. I have visions of Jovians saying, "1000 kilopascals? That's practically hard vacuum!"
  • "impressed into scientific duty by both superpowers" This reads like the V-2s were forced to conduct research against their will. I would say they were used for scientific research. Also, I would state the countries, as its not clear who the two superpowers are the way this is written.
Fixed both, though there's only ever been two superpowers...
China, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Ancient Rome would like a word! But seriously, I could understand it in a Cold War article, but I think a user looking to learn about spacecraft launches shouldn't be expected to know which countries are the superpowers in question.
  • "some 63 had been launched" Were there 63 launches? If so, why add "some" to the beginning?
Colloquial. Removed 63.
  • There's a rule about not starting a sentence with digits. (MOS:NUMNOTES) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But the sentence could still be started with something like "There were 63 launches..." Using "some" makes it sound like an approximation. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a moot point since the sentence doesn't start with 63. :)
  • "at least one returned three minutes of usable data" This is a little confusing as its not clear what three minutes of usable data means; is it a lot/little? Did the other missions bring back usable data, but not three minutes worth?
Unfortunately, all I know is that one of the flights (and not which one) returned three minutes of usable data. I suspect that's as much data as could be expected to be obtained. I could delete' "three minutes of" if you think the confusion value of the phrase exceeds its information value.
I do think deleting "three minutes of" would be the right call. In this context, the length of time doesn't really explain the amount of data returned, and I think it's confusing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back later with more comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I have. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Addressed all issues! Only the last point is unchanged pending your suggestion. Thanks very much for your help. I'm almost done with 1951, as it happens... --Neopeius (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Okiedokie. :) Fixed both issues. Thanks very much for your help! (and if you're interested, check out 1951 in spaceflight... --Neopeius (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Saw this from WP:AV. Planning to look through this (very, not very?) soon. GeraldWL 04:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your attention! :)
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* (Images) Please add alt texts to images.
Added for the Aerobee -- not sure how one does it for images in an infobox.
  • (Overview) The dash in "1946-7" should probably be changed with an emdash or endash.
Done.
  • (Launches) Why is there a duplicate TSL-M template, above and below the table?
Custom -- all of the timeline articles are like that (and some have them every month)
  • (Suborbital launch summary (1945-1950)) No citations on this section. GeraldWL 08:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the citations are in the launch summaries. I just tallied the missions. :)
Thank you again for your attention and interest! Gerald Waldo Luis


  • Support -- concerns addressed. Nice job! GeraldWL 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Very much obliged! --Neopeius (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I'm reviewing in response to an invitation on my talk page. The article is very complete and well presented, but I would like to offer the following comments:

  • The lead seems a bit short and imprecise, and I'm not sure that it defines the topic - not least as the spaceflight covered in this article is a bit different to what the average person considers space flight to be
I inherited this page even if almost all of the text is new. Spaceflight seems to be any launch by a vehicle, one example of which crossed the 60 mile line. But I think the sticking issue is describing it as "human spaceflight" which suggests the flying of people. I've shortened it to simply "spaceflight" with the hope that no aliens are reading this to take offense.
Were I to expand the lead, what would you want to see? This is definitely the shortest of the leads I've written for this series, although not by a significant amount. (Note: I just fleshed out the rest of the early Vikings since it was weird to just spotlight Viking 5, and Viking 4 also went into space. I just cribbed my own language from the Viking article -- in which I had earlier cribbed my language from this article! The virtues of writing in a modular fashion.)
The lead should summarise the full content of the article, so should discuss the military and civilian activities covered in the article (the nature of these programs, the number of launches, etc). Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've summarized what can be summarized at this point. If there's anything you think needs expansion, please let me know. The current length is comparable to that of the next three articles now.
  • The first para of the 'Overview' section should make it clear that the V-2 was being developed as a weapon
Quite right. Done.
  • "its own heavy sounding rocket, the Viking" - can "Viking" be linked here?
Done.
  • I'm not sure what the purpose of the flag of Allied occupied Germany or the post-war Germanies against the V-2 labels is. As I understand it, production of V-2s ceased with the end of the war, so these weapons were produced during the Nazi era of Germany. These launches were then conducted by the various Allied governments (Germany was not self governing during the first part of this period). The flag suggests that the missiles were either produced in occupied Germany, or the German government was involved, neither of which is correct. Aside from misleading readers, this also fails to recognise that these missions were the continued results of the appalling slave labour program under the Nazi regime by implying that the rockets were produced separately. The history here is obviously very complex, and this is might be an example of where attempts to use images to simplify things don't work in practice?
This is another artifact of having inherited the article. This was the topic of vociferous debate some time ago, and the decision executed on the page appears to have been the agreed-upon solution. It does keep from cluttering up the page with a profusion of swastikas. I think also the idea was that the borrowed expertise was no longer 3rd Reich but what came after. (production of the V2 did not quite cease with the war -- some were assembled from pieces afterwards; also, the R1 is an almost exact copy of the V2, though by Russians.) ((as for the nasty nature of the Nazis, you'll get no argument from me! Most of my relatives were lost in that blight on history...))
I don't agree: these were not rockets produced by the post-war German Government. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do. Like I said -- this argument is outstanding from a decade ago, and this is how I inherited it. What would you do?
Replace the Flags with Nazi-era flags or, better still, remove all the flags. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The former is possible, though I'd want consensus. The latter is not. --Neopeius (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have replaced the V-2 flags with Swastikas, and I made the R-1s solely CCCP (the R-1 might be a virtual copy of the V-2, but the Tu-2 isn't a B-29 so neither is the R-1 a V-2 :) That satisfy you, @Nick-D:? --Neopeius (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why the data in the 'Suborbital launch summary' section is limited to 1945 onwards? As the article notes more than 3000 V-2 combat launches and quite a lot of test launches, the omission of data before this date means that these data presented are incomplete. Is it possible to include the German launches here, or are there problems with the data? Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3000 launches is quite a lot. The general trend for these articles seems to have been to include all of the testing launches of vehicles that broke the 60m line but not necessarily the operational launches of purely military ballistic missiles that never again crossed into space. As this page is already a bit long, there is no good documentation of every single V2 launch, and such would be of little benefit to anyone (and certainly would have only the most tangential connection with spaceflight), my compromise was to list the early test flights, spotlight the one wartime flight into space, and summarize the rest. The other option would have been to start post-war, but that didn't seem cricket, either.
I'm not suggesting that each V-2 launch be listed, but am querying why the total numbers of launches are not included in the statistics at the end of the article, given the result of the current approach looks a bit odd. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is spaceflight, and including the 3000 V2s (I'm not sure exact numbers exist) would utterly skew the graphs into worthlessness. Hence starting in 1945. :) --@Nick-D:
Thank you so very much for your attention. Do let me know what you think. @Nick-D: --Neopeius (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I gave the text of the article a thorough reworking and reorganization. I think it's better now and matches the other articles. It was written first so I hadn't settled into a routine yet. All the facts are the same, but now their presentation is better. --Neopeius (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those changes look good, and I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note

This nomination was never actually transcluded onto WP:FLC, and therefore was never actually an official nomination. It still has a bunch of comments, presumably from people and wikiprojects that were directly notified, but it's in an awkward position of being really, really old with no comments for a month, but also new. I've also deleted a similar nomination for 1951 in spaceflight that never got a single comment that was also not actually put on the nominations page. @Neopeius: if you were wondering why this nomination was so slow and stalled... this is why. --PresN 15:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Huh! Yes, that was rather surprising. Thank you for that. I'll renominate...correctly! What do I do about this one? It's gotten momentum so I'd hate to kill it. --Neopeius (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neopeius: I've gone ahead and listed this nomination here onto FLC, and put a note on the talk page about it; since you already have three supports and another in-depth review ongoing, I think it's fine to just leave this one up to see if it gets a broader reviewer pool. For example: I'm concerned about the accessibility of the table, with the very non-standard section header rows in the middle of it which basically make it nested tables. I just can't see how that doesn't break the page altogether as far as screen readers are concerned, and I think the result is that you have a table with the actual headers, but then the body is a series of subtables with their own headers that aren't really headers (plus remarks, which doesn't have any real connection to it's "header"). I get that you're using a template, not a raw wikitable, but I'm suspicious that the template just isn't MOS-compliant at all. @Graham87: sorry to ping you directly; can you confirm whether or not the big table Spaceflight before 1951 is actually parseable by screen readers as-is? --PresN 01:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: It's parseable (surprisingly so) but not ideal ... on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is completely inaccessible and 10 is perfect, I'd give it about a four or a five. I don't know enough about the nitty-gritty of table formatting to know how to fix it myself though. Graham87 02:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: @Graham87: Thank you for your attention. Is my template different from the template for all of the other Timeline articles? As far as I know, it's the same format for all of them. --Neopeius (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HAL333[edit]

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 23:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
====Comments from HAL====

*Lede is too short.

Expanded (I used to call it a "lede", particularly because of my time as a journalist. Apparently, it is a "lead" not a "lede" because it does not serve the same function as a lede. Which is why so many of mine have to be fixed. ^^;;;)
    • Although you do touch on it, make it clear why the list ends in 1951.
That's a tough one. I didn't make this article originally, nor the others in the series. 1950 is kind of an arbitrary cut off. That said, I think I've made a nice justification for it.
  • Aerobee launch at sea doesn't need a full stop.
Fixed.
  • I would integrate the page numbers into the actual citations. (Not sure if this is allowed/condoned. I am unsure myself. If it's fine, ignore this.)
There are lots of ways to cite. This is the one I like, and it's a valid one. The reason I prefer rp style is it keeps the citation page manageable, even if some find the extra numbers unsightly. :)
  • Maybe provide hatnotes for some of the sections pointing towards an appropriate section of an article like History of spaceflight.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you give me some specific examples? Thanks.
It's not really necessary, but you could add

(Example at History of spaceflight#Space Race)

No other applicable articles right now. Space Race is a mess.

* Sea of blue issues with Aerobee sounding rocket

fixed.
  • In 1944, the V-2 set an altitude record of 196 kilometres (122 mi).[2] On 20 June 1944, a V-2 (MW 18014) was launched vertically, reaching a height of 174.6 kilometres (108.5 mi). Little choppy and repetitive.
Whoops. It's easy to lose sentences between long citations, thanks.
  • Add a comma after "In 1946"
done
  • huge swathes sounds authorial.
Better?
  • Some 50 Aerobee flights Why not provide the actual number?
I think I wrote that before I had a number I was comfortable with. I had to rewrite the whole damned table. Fixed, and I revamped that section a little bit.
  • There may be some undue weight regarding which launches you discuss in the prose. You might want to just condense the prose into a four paragraph lede.
I'm not comfortable with that kind of reduction, but I think the Viking section is the problem. I've cut it in half.
  • On 10 May, 1950 Comma not needed.
Fixed.

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 20:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Thanks so much for your well-founded critique! --Neopeius (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Was about to come back with a second round but just couldn't read through the comments and responses because they were struck - quite the headache. Could you unstrike them? Thanks. ~ HAL333 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
@HAL333:Fixed. --Neopeius (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the remarks column empty?
??? Where? If you mean the remarks columns with just the citation in them, I'll fix that.
To the right of the pie chart. ~ HAL333 16:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: Fixed. --Neopeius (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, the only really major issue is the sourcing, which other editors have touched on and the source review will get to. I would also like to see you get the lead up to at least two paragraghs. Once those two things have happened, I'll come back and support. Cheers. ~ HAL333 22:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: I think the Russian site is fine (see comments to RunningTiger123 below). Lead is now two paragraphs. --Neopeius (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
Fixed (didn't bracket U.S. as I'm told that's over-linking)
If the Soviet Union is linked, then the United States should be linked as a comparable entity. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think that. The rationale I've gotten is that the US still exists and everyone knows what it is whereas the Soviet Union is a defunct nation.
Fixed
  • "The Soviet Union developed a virtual copy of the V-2 called the R-1, which first flew in 1948, its longer-ranged successor, the R-2, entering military service in 1950." – run-on sentence; needs different punctuation or to be split into two sentences
Fixed.
Fixed.
  • Table formatting for accessibility – I won't get into this too much since PresN and Graham87 have already pointed it out, but it is a major issue, especially the stacked column headers.
Someone's going to need to tell me what to do. This is the same table that has been used for every timeline article (70+ of them) for more than a decade.
I'll ping PresN on this, since he's done a lot of accessibility reviews on the FLCs I've seen. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's working on it so I'm staying out for now.
So, I think there's a few issues here, but I don't want to try to overthrow the template that's used on a bunch of articles in one go; I think we can solve it enough as-is. The big problem here, since Graham87 said that the nested table thing isn't the end of the world, is the section headers in the middle of the table. It's a combined row across the table (which isn't good), with a header element inside of it instead of text (which is really not good).
I've come up with a couple ways to fix it. In Option 1, I've ripped out the header rows, and used the {{Anchor}} template so that the little "year" table of contents still links fine to the first launch of each year. The downside here is that you get a very long table without interruptions. If you care about that, I also have Option 2, where I just make it multiple tables, one per year header. The downside here (since you don't have any sorting) is that the tables aren't lining up exactly. This is fixable by editing the {{TLS-H2}} template to make the first column optionally a specific width (I can do it for you, it's pretty straightforward, I just didn't want to do it for a test edit). It's up to you which look you'd prefer. --PresN 03:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN:You're doing above and beyond stuff, and it's greatly appreciated! I'm afraid my table knowledge is pretty rudimentary. (also, this may not affect all the rest of the Timeline articles, which are only one year per article except for this one). #2 looked nicer to my mind, but we'll need to fix 1942-1945 since the first column is weirdly long compared to the rest of the years, which look fine. :) --Neopeius (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neopeius: No worries, I like to encourage lists in areas that don't get as much attention, doubly so when it looks to be setting the standard for several lists to come. I've modified the {{TLS-H2}} now to have a couple extra parameters, and updated the list to have multiple tables and use the new params- specifically, the first columns should all line up now despite being multiple tables, and the "cubesat" line in the headers is gone since no cubesats were launched in this time period. Let me know if there's any changes you'd like. --PresN 16:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


* Date ranges in "Date and time" column should use en dashes (–), not hyphens (-)

Fixed.
  • "First artificial object to cross what would later be defined as the Kármán line and hence first spaceflight." – too much WP:SYNTH; you need a source for this
Artifact from previous editor. Fixed.
  • Some results only capitalize one word (i.e., "Launch failure"), while others capitalize all words (i.e., "Launch Failure"). Pick a style and stick with it. (I personally prefer the former.)
Fixed

* Pie chart at the end has no legend

How would you add a legend to the pie chart?
Not an expert, but maybe switching to Template:Pie chart would help? RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now done; Pie chart only does percentages, unfortunately, but the chart thing being used has a legend option. --PresN 17:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, @PresN:!
  • Sources swap between "First Last" and "Last, First" for authors' names. Pick one or the other and stick with it.
Fixed.
It seems you've switched some to "First Last", but there are still a lot of "Last, First" examples (e.g., refs. 1 and 12). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed again. Wow, what a pain. My predecessor wrote complete references for EVERY one, even when they were identical.

* Some of your citations are notes, not references, so they should be listed separately (see WP:REFGROUP and WP:EXPLNOTE for how to do this).

See next.
  • Ref. 14 ("I have found no evidence...") is OR. If the sources say there were chemical release experiments on board, we should say that; otherwise, we should cut it. We don't get to provide commentary.
    • Similar problem with ref. 16 ("Kennedy list the Agency...")
These predate me. Simply deleting them for now as I do not have access to those references.
Please see below.
    • Similar feelings about SpaSecraftrocket.org – from a quick search here, I'm guessing the site is also self-published. Also, while I don't speak Russian, I ran the website through Google Translate and didn't see any information about who published it, making it even harder to verify reliability.
Please see below.
No issues with Encyclopedia Astronautica now; I'll wait to see what you hear back about the Russian site. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may not get anything. I suspect they're good, though -- I mostly used them to doublecheck Mark's site because his Russian stuff is weaker than his American stuff. If Mark's good, I think the Russian one is worthy..

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add more clarification regarding that last point: There are some self-published sources that are considered acceptable, but those sources are generally discouraged unless the author has clear credentials in the field (i.e., an award-winning physicist writing about physics on his website would probably be okay). As best as I can tell, neither of these websites are run by subject-matter experts (though I could be wrong – feel free to correct me if I am), so they need to be replaced. See WP:SPS for more. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@RunningTiger123: I very much appreciate your thorough run-through! These timeline articles are just the hardest thing. They were a mess when I inherited them, and I've done my best to turn them into something useful. With regard to those two websites, speaking as a professional space historian (note: logical fallacy -- appeal to authority! :) ), the Russian one has checked out against stuff Asif Siddiqi has given me, enough so that I think it's trustworthy. Mark's been running Astronautix for more than two decades, and the errors I've caught him in have been minor (and generally not more significant that stuff I've found in "reliable" sources, including professional encyclopediae and the NSSDC.) Mark is definitely at the lower end of my range of my go-tos, but his lists are excellent. As time goes on, I will probably return to these articles and update them as I find more information (or others can do the same), but I don't think the use of these sites should hold up a nomination.

(Note2: further appeal to authority -- I've asked my colleagues on the American Astronautical Society's History Committee what they know about Mark and the Russian site.) --Neopeius (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

((Note 3: Mark Wade is a reliable source, per the American Astronautical Society's History Committee))

Thank you again, VERY MUCH, for your help. :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to do it! My comments are above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RunningTiger123: Addressed points struck out. :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've collapsed the resolved comments above; the two remaining issues are swapping between "First Last" and "Last, First" for authors' names and verifying the reliability of SpaSecraftrocket.org. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RunningTiger123: I can't verify the reliability further than I have. They check out insofar as I can check them, and that's a fair ways, and for Russian flights, they are more accurate than Mark Wade, who is considered reliable. I'd rather the nomination not get hung up on this. As an AAS Histcom member, I think they're alright. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can verify them with other sources, why aren't those included instead? Unfortunately, while I hate to see a nomination get stalled over one item, WP:SPS is part of the core content policy of WP:V, so we need to follow it. I would consider asking about the site at WP:RSN to see if those editors can offer any more insight. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SpaSecraftrocket is a sprawling site, like Mark Wade's. I don't have backup for everything on there, but what I do have backup for (like the R-5 list Asif gave me, the general parameters of stuff) has checked out better on SpaSecraft then Astronautix. --Neopeius (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking around and trying to find what they use as their source. Failing that, I'm trying to find others. It's not easy. --Neopeius (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. For now, since Mark's listing of R-1s seems to be complete, I've just replaced SpaSecraftrocket with Mark for now. When I confirm reliable Russian sources, I'll go back. But we should now have no obstacles to FA. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final Notes[edit]

Thank you, everyone, for your kind attentions. I have already taken the lessons learned to the 1951 article and I plan to do so for the other ones I've done (and then beyond to new ones). This has all been extremely helpful.

@PresN: do we have a sufficient number of supports for promotion? :) --Neopeius (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just vote counting, but yes, I think there's been a sufficiently broad and deep review of the list at this point. Except for the source review, which I'll do now:

  • I'm just going to go ahead and fix formatting things myself, and let you know what they are, as I dislike trying to describe things in a back-and-forth.
  • Titles should be title case, even if the source is all caps, per MOS:CAPS- you're allowed to make the formatting of titles look right, regardless of what the source has it as
  • If you're going to cite the same source 3 times (different pages each time) as you do with the Naval Research Laboratory Report No. R-3030, please make sure the formatting is the same for all 3. This will also help in noting that you cited the same table twice in two separate refs.
  • You don't need to put incorporation marks (Inc., Ltd., etc.) in with the names of publishing companies
  • Cites to a website need the "|website" parameter, not just the name of the author (aka Mark Wade); while you can technically put it in "|publisher", that's supposed to be reserved for the publishing company (if different than the website name)
  • It was mentioned above, but you have to pick either the "|first |last" combo or "|author", you shouldn't mix them
  • If you link one journal (which you did for Science) you need to link all publications (and probably publishers)- I just removed the link instead since it seemed like you were going for an unlinked style
  • You archived a couple web sources, but not consistently- the easy way to do it is to go to the article's History tab, click "Fix dead links" at the top, login if you need to, check the "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" box, and hit "Analyze". The bot will archive everything for you.
  • The sources themselves check out, and the dubious-looking ones were discussed above, with the exception of I-Spy Space; looks like it's because the author is the author of a book you're citing, which would have been easier to see if you had included the author's name in the cite.

Ok, source review passed. Please copy these things on to the next list(s). Promoting! --PresN 15:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work, PresN! This page was particularly weird and hard since so much predated me (and almost all of it had to be replaced). I will take these lessons to the next pages. --Neopeius (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/Spaceflight_before_1951/archive1&oldid=1029603509"