Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NERVA/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 June 2020 [1].

NERVA

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about NERVA, the NASA nuclear rocket project. Unlike its forerunner, Project Rover, it developed entire engines and not just reactors for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood

For what it's worth I don't know what it's about from the lead section. It lists dates and that it was considered successful but I truly have no idea what it did, what those goals were or why it was successful from the lead (how it was tested, why it was needed, etc.). In my opinion it wasn't that successful if it never launched anything. It doesn't really cover the "origins" section either. Also none of the statistics from the engine infobox are covered in the lead, how it compares with other engines, etc.

Looking onward, the article from what I can tell is well-written overall but the lead isn't great in my opinion. I'll list some other comments I have:

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* In December 1953, it was published in Oak Ridge's Journal of Reactor Science and Technology. While still classified, this gave it a wider circulation. was the Oak Ridge Journal of Reactor Science and Technology classified as well? Or was the paper leaked?

Yes, the journal was classified. Changed to "The paper was still classified, as was the journal, but this gave it a wider circulation." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bussard's study also attracted the attention of John von Neumann, and he formed an ad hoc committee on Nuclear Propulsion of Missiles. Bussard or von Neumann for "he"? Was the committee a part of a larger organization? I'm assuming it's a proper committee as well, not just that Nuclear Propulsion of Missiles was what it was about?
Changed "and he" to "who". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
director of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory can you provide a half-sentence of background on what NACA was? Same for Ramo-Wooldridge
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ramo-Wooldridge redirects to TRW Inc.
As the TRW article explains, Ramo-Wooldridge merged with Thmpson to create TRW in 1958. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In March 1956, the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP) can you provide a half-sentence on what this was?
I wrote a whole article on it. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
USAF I don't believe this is abbreviated beforehand.
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
USAF officer seconded to the AEC I'm not sure what this means.
Linked secondment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
has a higher number of neutrons per fission event not sure what fission is, maybe a link at least
Linked nuclear fission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
has a higher number of neutrons per fission event why would this be beneficial?
The neutrons cause fissions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link MW
MOS:UNITS says only to link "Units unfamiliar to general readers"; this one should be pretty familiar. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
its timing was off not sure what this means
Wasn't the right time for it. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This surprise success fired fears and imaginations around the world not sure this is needed
Doubt if it would be obvious to people today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and Hugh Dryden, his deputy whose deputy?
Glennan's. Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the day they after were sworn into office all of them were sworn in?
Glennan and Dryden. Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
considering that he lacked enthusiasm for it. who?
Finger. Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
B-1 and B-3 Test Stands at NASA's Plum Brook Station. kind of hard to tell which is which
Is it important? Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
based upon the Kiwi engine. have no idea what this is.
Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't abbreviate things you don't use, like BOB.
Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
nuclear poison wires can you link an article somewhere for nuclear poison wire?
Linked "nuclear poison". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
forcing Anderson to personally intervene how so?
Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
difficulties of dealing with hydrogen, which could leak through microscopic holes that would contain other fluids not sure what the context is here, or what this means
That smoking around a liquid hydrogen dewar is a bad idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion of this nine volume report, which was delivered in March 1965 was this classified or not?
Nope. Readers can download a copy if they like; there's a link in the references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was the first time a president had visited a nuclear weapons laboratory. do you have a citation for this?
Yes. It is at the end of the paragraph. The whole article is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The next day, they flew to Jackass Flats, making Kennedy the only president to ever visit a nuclear test site. needs a citation as well, I would qualify as well somehow since something could be classified yet about a president visiting a nuclear test site.
It is at the end of the paragraph. The whole article is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
just as chemical ones often are.[76][71][77] references out of order
Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link kilopascals
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
but Anderson, Cannon and Webb were up to the task. think this violates NPOV, maybe you're getting carried away a bit. Maybe cut.
Cut Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
faced two hours of questioning on NERVA II before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, were these public?
Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
which cut the NASA budget. makes it sound like the two hours of questioning cut the budget.
Tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson and Margaret Chase Smith instead killed Nixon's pet project, the Boeing 2707 supersonic transport (SST). This was a stunning defeat for the president. "killed" is a little vague
Seems the right word here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to use accessdates in all references except reference 3
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to interchange using different capitalization styles in the references, cf. 114 and 91
An artefact of the sources. Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The external link could be uploaded to the Commons.
It's too large to upload. You'll need to log on at WMF and upload from there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Therapyisgood (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde93

As I noted when reviewing Project Rover at FAC, that article had a lot of redundancies with this one. That might be expected if one was an overview of a broader topic, but it's not; they're almost-but-not-quite identical topics. Having two FAs with the same content does not feel right to me. This isn't made explicit in the criteria, but it seems to me that it's common sense; articles that are redundant in this way usually get dealt with long before they appear at FAC. Given that it's a potentially fuzzy area, I'd like to hear from @FAC coordinators: the coordinators what weight they would give this concern, should it rise to the level of an "oppose". Vanamonde (Talk) 01:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly overlap in the Origins section, and the Project Rover section is a summary of that article. The two articles diverge thereafter. The structure has been established for a long time, with them assuming their current form structurally by 2010. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are other featured articles with substantial overlap, such as those on various warships of the same class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that the articles diverge after the first two sections is inaccurate. There is substantial overlap in "transfer to NASA" (corresponding to a section of the same title in the other article); "Kiwi" (corresponding to a section of the same name in the other article); "Cancellation"; and "Post-NERVA research" (corresponding to "Legacy" in the other article). They even use identical sentences in some places. The SNPO subsection has material that's scattered across the Project Rover article. As far as I can see, the "NERVA NRX" and "NERVA XE" are the only ones that are entirely unique to this article; that's two subsections of eleven. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider this a valid oppose reason. I'm not sure that others would, but I would take it seriously. Apologies for the late reply, just getting back after a computer failure. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the worst possible time for a computer failure, but glad you're okay. I wasn't trying to game the system, only to bring both articles up to FAC standard. As Vanamonde93 says, they are almost-but-not-quite identical topics. The only alternative I can think of is to merge the two articles, but I doubt that there would be support for that. If the article cannot be promoted, then the nomination will have to be archived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I was kind of seeing both sides of the argument so I was interested in Ealdgyth's thoughts. In any case the review isn't making headway so I think need to archive no matter what. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.