Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Saturn V/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 19:04, 18 March 2008.

Saturn V

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space exploration and the article's principal editors: Enceladus (talk · contribs) who now appears to be Evil Monkey (talk · contribs), Joema (talk · contribs), Reubenbarton‎ (talk · contribs) and GeneralPatton‎ (talk · contribs).

This featured article was promoted in 2004, and it shows.

  • To begin with, there are only four inline references (and they are not in standard citation format). There are very, very many assertions that need inline references, such as the statement "The (cancelled) second production run of Saturn Vs would very likely have used the F-1A engine in its first stage ..." in Saturn V#Proposed post-Apollo developments.
  • The prose is less than brillant; witness for instance the choppy, bulleted-list-style paragraphs at Saturn V#C-5 and elsewhere.
  • The manual of style is not followed throughout; see for instance the advice to "See Project Apollo: Choosing a mission mode for more information" at the end of Saturn V#Background.
  • The article also uses unexplained jargon in places, such as in the sentence "Originally it was planned to use a 'wet workshop' concept, with a rocket stage being launched into orbit ..." in Saturn V#Skylab. What does this mean? Even a wikilink to wet workshop would help.

That's just what I saw at a glance - veteran FA editors will certainly spot more problems. Sandstein (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article uses both American and British spellings. There are abbreviated source units and spelled out conversion units; It happens at least once on the same measurement. Uses weasel words like "arguably". That's just a first glance using the peer review script. I've already added the non-breakable spaces for measurements, which were not used at all prior to my check. Jay32183 (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with the above noted issues. I'm working on Apollo 8's FAR, and have found some sources there that would probably work well for this article - but there's no good way I can manage two ongoing reviews at once. If another editor or editors pick this one up, I'll happily assist in its cleanup. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm leaving this up in review as well, so as not to over-burden people working on Apollo as well. Marskell (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will start copyediting this article this week. I'm not going to look at the citation issues at this time. --Laser brain (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll handle citations, but probably not in detail until later this week, looking at my schedule. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops, I recommend you hold up on the copyedit here, Laser, because I suspect that the bulk of the article is not reliably sourced. There's no reason to ce an article that may need to be substantially rewritten. Mark Wade is a space enthusiast, a personal webpage, doubt that it's a reliable source. This article has bigger problems than the other one did. Copyedit should proceed after the text is verified to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --Laser brain (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the References section, and there are good sources there, but the Footnotes are mostly from a non-reliable source, so the article needs to be re-cited to the reliable sources listed in References. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), prose (1a), MoS issues (2). Marskell (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has seen some work. Moving to see how people feel. Marskell (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Status? Is this stalled? No citation work since my last comment on the 19th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we were daunted, as this article is a much bigger task than Apollo 8 was. Let me see what I can come up with, but it's been on this list for a long time. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, Unless you can get on it, I'm a Remove, as the citations are lacking and those included are not to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the merits, I would agree - the best source I have that's directly about the Saturn Program is Stages to Saturn, which is good as far as it goes - but I can't base an entire FA on one work, however extensive it may be. Two sources would be a stretch. I can cite almost everything in the article, but at this point it's only to that work specifically. I'm looking to see if JSC or Marshall have online resources beyond just Stages to Saturn, but - apart from basic technical data, which is substantial - I don't think we're going to have enough to get this done in a timely fashion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:28, 14 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 "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Saturn_V/archive1&oldid=1138477711"