Talk:Future Launchers Preparatory Programme

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe: ESA Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by ESA task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

A user has requested that this article be reviewed by the European peer review programme to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Rik ISS-fan (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needed modifications

Thanks to everyone that has helped to improve this wiki. This discussion topic is supposed to make moderating easier. State the improvements that have to be made in the form of a bullet list. Thanks for your help. Rik ISS-fan (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I've completely renewed this wiki, so I request for a total review. Including Class and Importance evaluation. Rik ISS-fan (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article deserves a C- or B-class rating. And the following Importance ratings: For spaceflight: MID; for ESA taskforce: HIGH or TOP ; for EU: LOW to MID Rik ISS-fan (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new page structure

This page was classed as 'stub' because of that I want to drastically update this page. I propose the following structure:

Introduction:

Purpose
Program planning
Program outline (what it entails)
NGL

- Launcher concepts (6 launcher concepts made)
- Propulsion technology 
- Structure technology

Ariane 5 ME
IXV
Political Discussion and other difficulties
Resent developments
See also
Reference
External links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.231.141 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Modifications to above by Rik ISS-fan (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Consistent English variant

Since you obviously have chosen to use the British English style (ex.: Programme in the page title), which is fine, I'm just curious as to why you're being inconsistent and using the American program in the text? Articles are supposed to use a consistent English style, once chosen. (See MOS:ENGVAR and WP:CONSISTENCY.) JustinTime55 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Clean up some of the prose, its a little rough. I can specify if you need to, but its not very good throughout the article.

Cite every bullet point in main objectives.

Cite every paragraph in Approach.

Cite the collaboration paragraph.

Cite information in Structure.

Cite info in Inception.

Cite Period 1, Period 2 Step 1 and Step 2.

Cite every paragraph in Projects and in Coordination with other programmes.

Delete items in the See Also section that are already linked in the prose of the article.

Remove external links that are already included in the inline citations.

There are some images that could add to this article; add at least one.

Can't review criteria b2 until criteria b1 is satisfied better.

Start class for now.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]