Jump to content

Talk:Lunar I-Hab

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Seddon (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: No - Not interesting to a broad audience.

QPQ: No - x - Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Transquaking_River - noted by Seddon talk 19:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: (t · c) buidhe 20:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I thought the original hook could have been interesting, but maybe it's because I have an interest in astronomy and spaceflight, and I do understand where the concerns about lack of interest to a broad audience are coming from. With that said, perhaps a hook about it being the main habitat module of the Lunar Gateway or a hook about it being planned to launch at the same time as a crewed Orion spacecraft would work? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ones about "stealing" the payload have promise and could work as April Fools hooks, but I'd like to hear other thoughts on the matter (in any case, they're better than the original hook). @Buidhe: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about how April Fool's hooks are done but is it verifiable? The article doesn't mention "steal". (t · c) buidhe 03:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that it could "switch" launch providers, which isn't necessarily a "steal". However, for AFD hooks we do tend to be more loose with the allowed wordings, hence why I suggested that those wordings could work for AFD (they would be too imprecise to work on any other date). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, while ALT4 could work in case the "steal" hooks don't work out (and unlike those hooks, could probably run on a regular set on the quirky slot), the issue right now is that the article makes no mention of the arm being "optional" (in addition, there's a minor typo in a nearby sentence: "maybe" instead of "may be"). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Buidhe for another look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, so I'll let someone else evaluate the alternate hooks. (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we have to to go with an April Fools Day hook, I think ALT3 is the best option since it's both accurate and quirky at the same time, without giving away too much (which seems to meet the spirit of DYK hooks more). Given concerns with the "steal" wording I'm only supportive of that term being used if it's an April Fools hook, but I guess others can also have other opinions. I don't think ALT4 is usable on any date as nowhere in the article suggests that the Canadarm that will be used for the module is "optional". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to note that the nominator proposed a new hook above as a possible AFD hook (ALT5), but I'm also leaning against it for the same reasons as ALT4: the article doesn't state that the arm in question is "optional". In addition, said hook talks about the right to "bear arms", but unless it's referring to the "robotic surfaces" mentioned in the article then it appears the subject only has one arm, so the hook is inaccurate too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, are you going to approve any of these hooks for AFD or not? If not, and you think we need another opinion, please ask for it at WT:DYK, because AFD is fast approaching. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I would very much welcome another opinion. I myself have an interest in astronomy and spaceflight and so my opinion on if the hooks are interesting or not may be skewed, so I was hoping for a second opinion from a more disinterested editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am disinterested in space-related topics, and I think ALT1 is interesting. What is the source for this hook? The copyright concerns here still need to be addressed before it can be approved. There are also a few instances of WP:CITEFOOT errors, where the reference comes after the punctuation and a space, which also needs to be cleaned up. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these hooks are AFD-ish IMO, except ALT5, which is simply inaccurate and thus disqualified. Gatoclass (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose the hooks running as regular hooks, perhaps in the quirky slot? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that AFD has largely passed, the April Fools stuff is now largely moot. Still, we need a final decision on the hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have struck the original hook, ALT2, ALT3, and ALT5 per comments above, leaving ALT1 and ALT4 as possibilities for regular hooks, since AFD is past. Reviewer needed to check these hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, since no one else has picked up this nomination and the planned-for-AFD hooks have now been struck (all of which I had reservations about), I'll be taking over the review. As I mentioned before, ALT4 is problematic: the hook states that the IHM has multiple arms and that they are "optional", when neither of them are stated in the article (the article only mentions a single arm, and it's not "optional"). That leaves us with ALT1. ALT1 I think is okay, the problem is the link to SpaceX is an easter egg; it might be better to mention SpaceX explicitly then mention that it's a commercial company than the easter egg thing. ALT1 is not the best hook but per an above comment it may have some promise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT6 may need to be revised because not everyone may be familiar with SpaceX. Given that the core hook fact is the module potentially being brought to the moon by a commercial company, it may be a good idea to mention that SpaceX is one. Also, I do have some concerns about WP:CRYSTAL and so maybe the hook needs to be revised to clarify that it's only a proposal for now and SpaceX (or any commercial company for that matter) bringing it to the moon is still not sure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lunar_I-Hab&oldid=1231149894"