Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hubble Space Telescope/archive1

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

The article was kept 11:43, 27 April 2008.

Hubble Space Telescope

Review commentary

Notified User:Worldtraveller, User:Rnt20, User:LouScheffer, Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Space --Kaypoh (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section is too long. Referencing is not FA standard. I see a few short paragraphs. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a crack at this (Worldtraveller no long edits here). By "referencing is not FA standard" do you mean the format of the references themselves, or what (exactly). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I shortened the lead paragraph(s) until it's an overview of the whole program that fits on one screen (at a typical resolution, of course). I think this makes sense, FA or not, since there was a lot of very specific info in the lead, of interest mostly to specialists, and some general info that was missing. LouScheffer (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the references? They seem pretty good to me. LouScheffer (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wikipedia:Lead section guidance, references in the lead section can usually be removed because they are a repeat of invormation in the article body. Typically, references in the lead section should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skotywa (talk • contribs) 22:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable, and I removed the references (and added them to the section where needed). However, after this, following up on some of the topics (such as debate on servicing) requires several clicks/scrolls. So I added an intra-page link to the topic. LouScheffer (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead (2a) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Still a lot of unreferenced paragraphs and a few unreference sections. Article needs a copy-edit. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Referencing is now much better, only a few unreferenced paragraphs. Please give the article a good copy-edit. Also, I see two external links in the prose - change the external links to references. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- External links changed. The only unreferenced paragraphs are the lead, and those that are summaries of other main articles (the original instruments and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field). These could be referenced by copying over the references from the articles referred to, but it's not clear to me that this is a service to the reader - I'd think that if they wanted details about (for example) WF/PC-1, that first they would consult the article about it. Other opinions about this are welcome. LouScheffer (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course references can always be improved (and I'm doing that), but WP:V says Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.. Since Hubble is a recent and very public project, and the article is mostly facts and not summaries of other's views, there is very little material that has been challenged (check the edit history) or likely to be challenged (since web searches, or recourse to the many books and articles about Hubble, show the underlying information). So adding the references is nice (and in process) but should not prevent this otherwise informative article from being a FA. LouScheffer (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Re-wrote the lead to remove unneeded details and references. Added references for almost all prose that might be controversial (if you see something missing, please let me know). Note that this is a scientific article, and it's typical to take about a paragraph's worth of information at a time from a source. Unfortunately, there is no way I know of to indicate if a footnote refers to a whole paragraph, or just a single fact or sentence. (And footnoting every sentence hurts readability rather dramatically, IMO). LouScheffer (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The re-write of the lead is excellent. Good job, User:LouScheffer. The level of reference meets the FA requirements in all respects. I especially think the general, on-line references will be very useful for someone trying to get into this subject in more detail. WVhybrid (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain This is well written and referenced, and meets FA criteria. I have just copyedited it thoroughly, removed a fair amount of redundant interwiki linking, fixed all the image placement issues, split the 'References' into a bibliography and notes (they were already distinct), and fixed overcapitalization in the references. And now, I'm going to go take a nap. Maralia (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed. Please prune the External link farm per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. Unformatted citations, including missing publishers, publication dates and accessdates, example: Mikulski Vows To Fight For Hubble. (See WP:CITE/ES). WP:DASHes need attention (no spaced emdashes). And, hard data needs to be cited; there is still too much uncited technical and hard data. Very close to a keep once these citations issues are cleared up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've now resolved all MOSDASH issues. I added a few missing publishers, dates, and accessdates. I got rid of about half of the external links (Lou, note that I only commented out the ones that I thought were questionable calls). Maralia (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All references now have publishers. Changed short-form citations to be easier to find in the bibliography. I'm adding accessdates. Can you provide a few examples of un-cited technical and/or hard data? Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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