Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of space stations/archive1

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 not promoted by Giants2008 19:29, 4 August 2012 [1].

List of space stations

List of space stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of space stations/archive1

Nominator(s): ~

Talk to me 06:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comments that immediately spring to mind:
  • The list uses flags, and flags alone, to say what country the station belongs to. This is insufficient.
    • Done - I've added columns to all the tables containing country data. I also linked country names the first time they appear. ~
      Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • You similarly cannot rely on color alone to denote the ones that were unmanned, you have to indicate it also either with text or with a symbol.
    • Done - I've added a notation under the "Occupied", "Total Crew and Visitors", and "Manned" columns saying that this station was never manned. ~
      Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • What is "DOS"? Why isn't it linked? Is it the
    Salyut program
    ? Almaz also needs to be linked. Being linked in earlier text doesn't mean it can be skipped for a table.
    • Done - I added a notation above describing the difference between the two programs. The DOS program has no article yet, that's why I can't link it. ~
      Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Why do only some of the launches have times? Are the :00 seconds real or just false precision? For example, your source for the time for Salyut 1 says only that it launched at 1:40 UTC, not 1:40:00. I'm not sure we need the times anyway, that's perhaps a little specific for this list.
    • Done - I've removed the times. They were too much detail, and I didn't have sources for all of them. ~
      Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Inconsistent use of commas for days in orbit between tables.
    • Done - Fixed. ~
      Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Tiangong 1 is in a table labelled "orbiting and manned", yet has never actually been manned.
    • Done - I've changed the description above the table to be more clear. ~
      Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Under cancelled projects, you give the same reason for cancellation in three different ways. This could be moved into the text and that column removed.
    • Done - Fixed. ~
      Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • When the flag is replaced with a country, that should get its own column.
    • Done - Fixed. ~
      Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • We don't need the See Also section - Salyut and Skylab should be linked in the article itself, and 'space station' is literally the first link.
    • Done - I removed the unnecessary links, and converted the portal links to plain text links. I only have the portal links there now. ~
      Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• All of the above needs to be cleaned up. --Golbez (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments! Please let me know if there's any further changes you think I need. ~
    Talk to me 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Support NapHit (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• This is one of the most interesting pages I've read on WP--great job!

Why, thank you. :) ~

Talk to me 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• The Notes section should appear before References.

Done - fixed. ~

Talk to me 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Commons cat should go in "External links". And since it is the only link, you should use the inline variant.

Done - fixed. ~

Talk to me 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: these 2 are completely optional and should not impact this list being promoted:

• Lots of white space next to the ISS patch image. Don't know if anything can be done...

Not done - I'm sorry, I can't figure out any way to fix that. You're welcome to have a go. 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• What about adding citations to the "(private)" occurences and adding the company names to the "Notes" section?

Done - fixed. ~

Talk to me 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

– Lionel ^(talk) 01:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it took so long for me to get back, Internet has been iffy. I'll try to fix the optional ones later, depending on the Internet. ~

Talk to me 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've handled the optional comments. Thank you for the review. ~

Talk to me 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments from WFC

Sorry for taking so long to return to this: apart from a brief AWB run yesterday, my activity has been patchy this month for religious reasons.

I have a lot of time for this list. The lead is absolutely perfect for a layman, and the tables go into what looks like an appropriate amount level of detail. But I think this is the sort of list where some transitional text is needed (or in plain English, longer, more detailed text in some of the sections). I don't have enough expertise to give you an exhaustive guide, but will give a couple of examples:

1. I read through the text to see how much of it covered what a space station is actually for (either in general, or a specific space station). In total, we have:

"Space stations are used to study the effects of long-term space flight on the human body. They also serve as a platform for extended scientific studies. ... Space stations have been used for both military and civilian purposes" in the lead, and in the body: "The Long Duration Orbital Station (DOS) program was intended for scientific research into spaceflight. The Almaz program was a secret military program that tested space reconnaissance tactics."

2. I read through the text to see how much of it covered what could be described as unique, defining or current characteristics of specific space stations, in the broadest possible sense. In total, there is:

"As of 2012, the International Space Station and Tiangong 1 are the only manned space stations currently in orbit. ... The duration record for a single spaceflight is 437.7 days, set by Valeriy Polyakov aboard Mir from 1994 to 1995. As of 2012, three astronauts have completed single missions of over a year, all aboard Mir", plus the first line of each section.

The lead is perfect: both of the topics I mention are sufficiently touched upon. But for a subject of this depth, technicality and variety I believe that the sub-sections should go into more specific detail about the stations. I'm afraid I don't have enough technical expertise to give you a clearer steer, but it just feels to me that an "expert" (or perhaps more appropriately, someone wanting to use this list as a gateway to learning about space stations), would be found wanting. Regrettably, for that reason I have to oppose at the moment. —WFC— 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... OK. Thank you for your kind words. ~

Talk to me 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments from W. D. Graham

• There have been quite a lot of proposed space stations over the years which never made it to orbit, however only three are listed
  • I'm going based off the {{
    Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Completeness is one of the featured list criteria. I feel further research is needed if this list is to become featured. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you feel further research is necesary, of course I can spend some time researching. However, many countries are very secretive about their space failures, so I'm not sure how much I can find. ~
        Talk to me 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• The list seems to claim that "rising costs" was the cause of every cancelled programme being cancelled; this is incorrect, and not even cited for the examples given
  • Done - fixed. I've added an extra column and included references. ~
    Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • A general remarks column might be better --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've converted the title to remarks, and updated the data accordingly. Does that work? ~
        Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• ESA and Bigelow Aerospace are not countries
  • Done - Fixed. I've converted the column to "Agency" and included the flags and then the agency name. ~
    Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm not sure commercial organisations such as Bigelow could be classed as agencies either. The USSR certainly isn't an agency. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that "agency" doesn't quite get it. How 'bout "entity", "owner", or maybe "country or entity". Other ideas are welcome, of course. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I converted "agency" to "entity". ~
          Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Some of the stations listed as "de-orbited" [sic] were not deorbited; DOS-2 was never in orbit, and Skylab, Saylut 2, Kosmos 557 and Salyut 7 decayed naturally
  • I changed the section heading. If you think of a better heading, please feel free to change it. ~
    Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• It should be made clear that the three failed stations were intended to be manned
  • Done - added as a note. ~
    Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Soyuz 10 seems to be counted in manned visits to Salyut 1, but not in terms of crew. This should be corrected, or it should be made clear that you are counting the docking failure as a "visit"
  • Done - fixed. Oops. ~
    Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• For that matter, how does the list define a "visit"? How are docking failures listed? How about launch failures? And is Soyuz T-5 listed as having visited Mir once or twice?
  • Docking failures are still visits. I defined that in the Salyut 1 row. Yes, docking failures are listed unless I missed one. Launch failures aren't. Soyuz T-5 is listed as having visited Mir twice. ~
    Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Is that made clear in the article? --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Unmanned" should not be hyphenated
  • Done - fixed. ~
    Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I don't like the way the table is split between past and current space stations, it makes the second table very short, and messes up the column widths. Could they be merged into a single table, perhaps with the active stations differentiated using a different background colour, or separated by a row in the table.
  • I'd rather not combine the two tables, as there are columns that apply to one and not the other. If things continue to go the way they're going, we'll have more rows in that table very soon. ~
    Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I don't understand why the programme field is only in one of the tables, and that just leaves decay date. If you switch to a short date format (YYYY-MM-DD), that should save enough space to add it to both. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the crew sizes seem to include visiting crew (eg. Mir & Salyut 7) whilst others don't (eg. ISS & Salyut 6)
  • Done - fixed. ~
    Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's fine. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Durable Orbital Station" is a mistranslation, it should be "Long Duration Orbital Station"
  • Done - fixed. ~
    Talk to me 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's fine. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• MOL was never launched; the 1966 launch was a mockup built using parts taken from Titan missiles. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified in the text. ~
    Talk to me 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Overall, this is a very good list, however it does still need some work to meet featured list criteria --W. D. Graham 22:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the concerns, but I have to log off now (real life calls). I'll be back later to address the other concerns. ~

Talk to me 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]