Jump to content

Talk:EASE/ACCESS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleEASE/ACCESS was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 17, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Assessment

[edit]

Wow, nice work on this article! I love the heavy citing of source references! I don't know much about assessment, but I have tentatively placed this at "B-class", though I don't off-hand see why it shouldn't be classified higher. Because the article makes no direct claim that e.g. ISS design was influenced by these two missions, I'm hesitant to rate its importance to space exploration as highly important. Is that a misunderstanding on my part? (Sdsds - Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the praise! You're probably right on importance, I doubt anyone could argue that EASE/ACCESS was "highly important" to space exploration, but if I get a chance I'll try to find more about its impact and add it to the article. — Swpb talk contribs 14:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

[edit]

Is it possible to rename the article using the move feature using the acronym: EASE/ACCESS similar to other Space science experiments such as SSIES? Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the spelled-out name is preferred under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). — Swpbt & c 04:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore passed. Gary King (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

[edit]

There's a small argument against a move, but the quoted guide clearly states that you should use the most common form. Looking at the references, you can clearly see that the short forms are used far more often than the long form, even within their own documentation. Moreover, a google search clearly shows that this is true in a wider context as well. I highly recommend a move, considering the side effects its having on everything from the category pages to various lists. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misstate the guide. WP:ABREV states that the spelled-out form is preferred unless the term is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form. This case fails the second criterion, as the topic is not widely known at all. I forgot about this criterion when I requested the move, but in light of it, I now disagree with the move. » Swpbτ • ¢ 16:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]

Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures → EASE/ACCESS — More commonly used name. — Swpbτ • ¢ 02:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • More commonly used name. Withdrawing requested move per WP:ABREV. — Swpbτ • ¢ 02:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "EASE/ACCESS" sounds ambigious and to people outside the space organizations could look like any sort of easy access and to me first sounded like providing for the disabled. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed my mind on the move, although not for the reason you give. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an article title that "seems" like it might refer to something else, if it is the accurate name of the topic, which EASE/ACCESS is. It is not the job of the title to make it obvious to all what the article is about; that's what the first sentence is for. The title has one requirement: to be accurate. The real reason the article should not be moved is WP:ABREV, which states that the spelled-out form is preferred unless the topic is "widely known" by the abbreviation. Even though the abbreviation is much more widely used in this case than the spelled-out form, neither could be described as "widely known". » Swpbτ • ¢ 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact of the matter is that NASA refers to this by the short form, which you can clearly see in the images in this page. NASA's name for this is the name we should use. It is not up to us to tell NASA what the name is, just so that we can robotically follow a suggestion on formating written by someone else. We have a brain for a reason, mine tells me that the damage that this long name does to the wiki on the cat pages and others is far greater than the damage it would do to the wiki by using the short forms, which are more proper anyway. WP:IAR. 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
To me, the policy is clear and sensible, and having a long title affect a cat page doesn't strike me as a good reason not to call a thing by its actual name. » Swpbτ • ¢ 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well: ACCESS is the "actual name". That's what NASA calls it. It calls it that in all of the references. It calls it that in the images on this page. Heck, even you call it that on your own personal page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare and contrast: ASSET, X-23 PRIME, MESSENGER, MAVEN, STEREO, etc. There is a clear trend to use NASA's common naming for these projects. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NAME, I think Maury is right, and the article should be titled by its abbreviation. Reliable sources (notably NASA) usually call it "EASE/ACCESS", so we should called it "EASE/ACCESS". As Swpb pointed out, neither form is "widely know"; but NASA primarily uses the short form, which is what I think is important here. Mlm42 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
GA review (see here for criteria)

I believe, along with another editor of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, that this article does not meet the good article criteria. I am therefore going to review it against the criteria, in order to determine whether it should retain GA status in its current form, and if not, what modifications would be necessary in order to retain it. Replies to the review should be posted here, it will remain open for at least a week for improvements to be made before the article is delisted.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The grammar used in this article is poor in places, and a thorough copyedit is required. MOS compliance is a major issue. Let's start with the title. "Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures" is rather long, and whilst this is not in itself a problem, it does pose the question of whether it is the common name. I searched for the current title and "EASE/ACCESS spacecraft" using Google, and the latter returned more results by well over an order of magnitude, so the page clearly needs to be moved. Next there is the issue of units. The article switches between metric and imperial in several places. Since it is a scientific article, SI units should have priority in all places. The article also contains both British and American spellings. It was an American project, so I would suggest using American English.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References are sparse, but when present they are reliable. There doesn't seem to be too much OR.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article stays fairly focussed. Lack of detail is the most severe issue with this article. All sections, particularly the results and conclusion sections contain far too little information. In some areas the lead contains more detailed descriptions than the body - the lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, not to present information which is not present elsewhere. The article is completely devoid of background information, and details of the EVAs themselves are virtually non-existent.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The conclusion section has a slight pro-NASA bias
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    One of the most stable articles I have ever seen, there hasn't been a meaningful edit to it in over a year.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images are present, appropriately tagged, and have suitable captions, however I have a few issues with their use. Let's start with the "main image", the first one that a reader sees as they load the page. It looks like somebody has just taken a photo of a book. Maybe there aren't any better images of that part of the experiment, but there are better images of the other part which should probably take precedence. Move the poor quality one down, or better still, try and replace it. You've also got several images aligned, with different sizes. This looks scrappy.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This article needs a lot of work to retain GA status.

To reinforce the need for cleanup, I am also going to review this article against WikiProject Spaceflight's B-class criteria:

  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. The citations are not just raw URLs ✓ Pass
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Some aspects, particularly the background, may still be covered in less detail than would be desirable, however no critical information should be absent. ✗ Fail
  3. The article has a defined structure. This should consist of a lead section and appropriately divided sections. ✓ Pass
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. There are no significant errors in spelling or grammar, and no outstanding cleanup issues ✗ Fail
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. This should include relevant images if any are available, and an infobox if one exists. ✗ Fail
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way although it should not be "dumbed down". Technical terms should be explained or at least linked ✓ Pass

Evidently, work is needed--GW… 22:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the GW analysis above. While it was an interesting article to read, if it ever was in fact "GA" status against the Wikipedia quality guides, it is not now. N2e (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this ten days and there has been no change. I am therefore revoking GA status for this article. Once it has been improved, it may be nominated for GA status once more in the normal manner. --GW… 22:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 17:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures → EASE/ACCESS – Obvious case of WP:COMMONNAME. The experiment is rarely if ever called by its full name, the abbreviated version is almost always used. --GW… 11:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EASE/ACCESS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:EASE/ACCESS&oldid=1216380168"