Talk:Orbiting skyhook

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This redirect was accepted on 15 February 2014 by reviewer Dodger67 (talk · contribs). Physics This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Spaceflight This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles

I propose that

. The articles are duplicated to the extend that the text is a mirror image of each other. While merging, a major style overhaul and cleanup should be done, including:

• rewrite the introduction.
• use inline citations.
• remove
  WP:original research
• remove editorial comments and the overall "sales pitch" style.
• remove
  WP:peacock terms

Cheers,

]

• I agree. Skyhook (structure)‎ was the earlier of the two but contained very little worthwhile material before recent additions. However the current versions of both articles are completely unacceptable as POV, OR and advocacy. andy (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I propose then that we work instead on
  talk) 14:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• d'accord andy (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like
  talk) 19:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]