Talk:Space Race/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Neopeius (talk · contribs) 00:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted to assist. I think the biggest challenge will be reducing the length of the article as it is currently half again as long as the maximum length recommended by Wikipedia. I don't think trimming will be too difficult, actually.

I'll go through the various sections over the next week and make my suggestions.

Thank you very much for taking on this onerous task! --Neopeius (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I am not happy with: having to use the picture of Fallen Astronaut to illustrate Soyuz 1. What I would like is the gruesome photo of the wreckage (which I know is available on Google image), which is on par with the Apollo 1 charred cabin photo. Can we find out if it is copy-free, or else have to settle for fair use? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is one contentious issue that has popped up; I hope that does not kill this. Given your concern about the article length, I'm sure you would agree the infobox doesn't need to be overcrowded. I am firmly opposed to Halo FC's four-image photomontage, and MOS:FLAG makes flags by everyone's name inappropriate decoration, and only adds unnecessary drama rather than useful information. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I told Halo, editing the article is currently more important than the infobox. There is value to identifying the nationality of the key names in the space race (MOS:FLAG notwithstanding, I frequently use flags in my spaceflight infoboxes; q.v. Spaceflight_before_1951) but I agree that *former* nationalities are not germane. Even for Germans. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First thoughts

Cut the Germany section down to one paragraph.

Done I'll work on that. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I wonder if it might make sense to remove the Rocket Development section entirely, putting vital information in the following section. That'd lose about 8K. That section could be saved somewhere else, perhaps in an "origins of rocketry" article (if one doesn't already exist).

Hmmm...interesting idea. I'll have to digest that. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found History of rockets#Modern rocketry to be the ideal place to move more detailed text out of here. I'm thinking the Theoretical foundations subsection is out of scope and should go out, but the German, Soviet, and American subsections should be cut down to summary style rather than removed. Cold War missile race could maybe be trimmed down a bit. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With a suitable renaming? "Lead-up to the Space Race" or something. --Neopeius (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vostok is twice as long as it needs to be.

OK Think I've made a good dent in this. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Also, in the last paragraph, the last sentence would be better served in the parachute section several paragraphs up, and the sentence before, describing the dimensions of the Vostok, would be better served near the top rather than at the end. --Neopeius (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First "multi-crewed" spacecraft

What about it? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it's just "First crewed" which is incorrect (since Mercury and Vostok were crewed!) :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be argumentative, but no, they weren't in the traditional sense of crew which is "more than one person operating a vessel". The Russians have always listed "first crewed spacecraft" (Voskhod 1) as one of their accomplishments. Calling Mercury and Vostok "crewed" with single occupants is just ideosynchratic Wikipediaese, trying to find a politically correct, unawkward substitute for "manned" or "human spaceflight". JustinTime55 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me. Blame NASA. And then there's this. The fact is, Vostok (and Mercury) capsules were crewed and uncrewed. And you can't really call them "manned" given that one sixth of the human Vostok flights was "womaned." Crewed just means human-operated, as opposed to "robotic" or "automatic." NASA and Space.com represent broader usage than idiosyncratic Wikipidiaese :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But, the issue could be avoided with, perhaps, "First multi-seat spacecraft." --Neopeius (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rest feels the right length. That would get us down a lot closer to the 100K length. From there, it's streamlining. What do you think? --Neopeius (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I asked in the Tea House what to do about the length of the article, and they said "hey, it's really only 74K of 'readable prose' so it's cool." It's still 12224 words, and that's not counting the lists under Gemini accomplishments and the Outer Space Treaty, which make it longer. I still feel that the first section can be removed and the most pertinent bits added to the following section. --Neopeius (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status report (19 May 2021)

@Neopeius: It's now ~~69,559~~ 67,375 prose characters, ~~11,309~~ 10,973 words. How does it look? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinTime55: Thanks for the ping and for the cutting. I will get to this over the next few days. If the length is right, I'll go into substantive edit review. :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinTime55: Alright. So length-wise, we're probably fine. The first thing we need to work on is the first section. It's vitally important that an article on the Space Race begin with...the Space Race. I strongly reiterate that the first section is counterproductive as is. This is easy to fix, at least to a first order of utility:

Rename the second section: Origins of the Space Race
Move the Missile Development section to the beginning of that newly renamed section
Move the Soviet rocketry section to the beginning of the Soviet planning section
Move the American rocketry section to the beginning of the American planning section
You'll need to explain the German origins of ballistic missiles and the importance thereof to both superpowers -- possibly as the third section of the new Origins of the Space Race section makes sense.

--Neopeius (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything you suggest makes a lot of sense to me.

"An article on the Space Race must begin with the Space Race": Agreed, but articles structured historically (like this one) sometimes begin with a Background or Origins section. That's basically what I did here, but my latest draft has what I think was an overly-detailed history stripped out.
By "second section", I assume you mean Rocket development, and are counting the introduction (article summary) as "section one". I also assume by "Missile Development" you mean Missile race. If I just rename "Rocket development" to Origins or Background, and move the Soviet and American subsections, that will be all that is left, and nothing has to be moved for step 2. (Also, the MOS suggests not unnecessarily repeating the article title in headings, so "Origns" instead of "Origins of the Space Race".)
If I move those sections downstream of the Missile race, this will be in the reverse of historical order and disrupt the flow. Historically, the Soviet rocketry and American rocketry sections had to preceed the missile race (else where did the technology come from?)
I thought I did explain the German origins and the importance (just not in excess detail).
Your point 5 contradicts the rest; if I move Soviet and American sections down, there is only one left (Missile).

I put this together with a logical, historical flow; I don't think whatever change you want (as I understand it, and I don't really understand it) is simply a matter of moving around what is here, without a lot of rewriting. Why do you think the first section is counterproductive as is? The first time around, you said you wonder if it should be moved out to another article, to strip out 8K; but now you say we're OK on size. This section does "explain the German origins of ballistic missiles and the importance thereof to both superpowers".

Is this what you meant?

Origins

Missile race

First artificial satellites

Soviet planning

Soviet rocket development

United States planning

American rocket development

??? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I meant:

Origins

Missile race

Soviet planning

Soviet rocket development

United States planning

American rocket development

Tell you what. This weekend, I will do a quick draft of that section and you'll see what I mean. We can go from there. :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinTime55: Ok, this is really quick and dirty, but [this] is the structure I was thinking. You can embellish as you feel necessary, but I think the flow is much better this way. Most importantly, you've got a summary statement at the beginning that explains why we're starting with rockets. Everything flows from there. The Germans are important, and they have a thread throughout, but they are not the start of the Space Race story -- only one of the players. --Neopeius (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: OK, I merged in your ideas. I think it's important to keep the part which explains why Goddard missed the party and did not become America's founding father of rocketry instead of von Braun. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinTime55: Cool. :) This week is shaping up to be very busy so I may not get back to the GAC until early next week. We'll see. Sorry for the delay! --Neopeius (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinTime55: I am finally getting my head above water and look forward to giving the article a thorough editing over the next few days. Thank you for your patience! --Neopeius (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Edits

(This section needs a lot of revision, more so than most of the rest of the article. Since this thing is 25+ pages long, I'm going to do it in sections. I think the beginning will be more arduous than the rest.)

"The technological advantage demonstrated by spaceflight achievement was seen as necessary for national security, and became part of the symbolism and ideology of the time."

Replace with "Spaceflight achievement was deemed necessary to national security, strategically and ideologically. Not only was it seen as vital to secure the "high ground" of space to forestall a military advantage by the other power, but success in space demonstrated technological superiority and provided material for propaganda."

"The Space Race brought"

Replace with "Milestones of the Space Race included"

"The USSR achieved the first successful artificial satellite launch on October 4, 1957 of Sputnik 1, and sent the first human to space with the orbital flight of Yuri Gagarin on April 12, 1961. The USSR demonstrated a significant early lead in the race with these and other firsts over the next few years, including the largest Earth orbital lift capability, flight durations measured in days instead of hours, the first multi-person crewed spaceflight, and the first spacewalk."

Replace with "The USSR quickly developed a significant early lead, achieving the first successful artificial satellite launch on October 4, 1957 of Sputnik 1, the first human to space with the orbital flight of Yuri Gagarin on April 12, 1961, the first multi-person spacecraft in 1964, and the first spacewalk in the same year. During this period, Soviet flight durations were measured in days; American missions were measured in hours."

"The USSR lost its early lead after US president John F. Kennedy raised the stakes by setting a goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth".

Replace with "On May 25, 1961, US president John F. Kennedy set the stage for overtaking the Soviets by setting a goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth".

"development of the first super heavy-lift launch vehicle, the Saturn V,"

Replace with "development of the first super heavy-lift launch vehicle: the Saturn V," (just swapping comma for colon)

" a singular achievement generally considered[by whom?] to outweigh any combination of Soviet achievements."

Replace with "to mark the beginning of the end of the Space Race."

" to outweigh any combination of Soviet achievements."

Replace with "to mark the end of the first stage of the Space Race."

"The USSR pursued two"

Replace with "From 1964 ^[1], the USSR had pursued two"

"A period of détente followed with the April 1972 agreement on a co-operative Apollo–Soyuz Test Project (ASTP), resulting in the July 1975 rendezvous in Earth orbit of a US astronaut crew with a Soviet cosmonaut crew and joint development of an international docking standard APAS-75."

Replace with "A period of détente followed with the April 1972 agreement on a co-operative Apollo–Soyuz Test Project (ASTP), which in in July 1975 culminated in the first rendezvous in Earth orbit of an American and a Soviet spacecraft."

"But the competition did not suddenly stop then;"

Delete

"Apollo–Soyuz began a period of transition from competition to one of US and Russian space cooperation"

The 1980s saw a resurgence of the Space Race corresponding to the return of tension between the superpowers: Star Wars, Shuttle vs. Buran. You'll want to replace this sentence with something more accurate.

"by December 1991, when the collapse of the Soviet Union brought the end of the Cold War and enabled the Shuttle–Mir and International Space Station programs between the US and the newly founded Russian Federation.[10][11]"

Replace with "The Space Race formally ended in December 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War ushered in an era of cooperation in space between the US and the newly founded Russian Federation, including the Shuttle–Mir and International Space Station programs."

All of these are just wording changes that should be able to keep the citations. The only one you'll want a new citation for is the line you come up with regarding the 1975-1991 era.

Origins

"Although Americans and Soviets experimented with small rockets before World War II, launching satellites and humans into space required the development of larger ballistic missiles such as Wernher von Braun's Aggregat-4 (A-4), which became known as the Vergeltungswaffe 2 (V2) developed by Nazi Germany to bomb London in the war.[12] After the war, both the US and USSR acquired custody of German rocket development assets which they used to leverage development of their own missiles."

Please put this paragraph after the following one ("Soon after the end of World War II, the two former allies became engaged in a state of political conflict and military tension known as the Cold War (1947–1991), which polarized Europe between the Soviet Union's satellite states (often referred to as the Eastern Bloc) and the states of the Western world allied with the US.")

@JustinTime55: That's what I have the spoons for today. That took an hour. :) Again, I think the rest of the article will be smoother sailing. Cheers! --Neopeius (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinTime55: @Nsae Comp: I've failed the GAC. One of the requirements is stability, and Nsae Comp has begun a complete rewriting of the article. Please feel to renominate when the article is stable (note: I may not be available as reviewer at that time). --Neopeius (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius:, I am sorry I was not aware of the GAC process. But I am basically finished, since I am not geting into the main body of the article, I was only focusing the lead. I know I did a row of edits but they look more than they are text alltogether. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinTime55: @Nsae Comp: @Halo FC: Hello folks. I had just gone through and spent an hour making notes for the revision of the lead. :) It was dispiriting to then have a third party come in and then completely change everything. Anyway, for the future, Nsae, before making significant edits, you might go to the Talk page to see if the page is undergoing some kind of review. It should say that on the top of a regular page, too, but the Talk page will give more info. Justin, you've got my notes from before. If you want to revert Nsae's edits and implement, we can see about renomination and continuing.

Nsae, if your primary interest lies with the space race, I've got lots of projects to work on if you're game. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Oddbjørn Engvold, Bozena Czerny, John Lattanzio and Rolf Stabell (30 November 2012). Astronomy and Astrophysics - Volume I. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). pp. 228–. ISBN 978-1-78021-000-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[Stabell2012-1] Oddbjørn Engvold, Bozena Czerny, John Lattanzio and Rolf Stabell (30 November 2012). Astronomy and Astrophysics - Volume I. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). pp. 228–. ISBN 978-1-78021-000-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]