Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Space Shuttle missions/archive1

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 11:59, 17 January 2015 [1].

List of Space Shuttle missions

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1 (first FLC), Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1 (removal).

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the removal concerns have been addressed. My role in this article was to collect sources and format the article according to MOS. While there are still minor things to do, I believe it should pass muster now. Thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This is a list in table format ... We don't start articles "This is an article about...". Applies to lists too.
- I added a new leade. I took the information from Space Shuttle and trimmed/modified it slightly. Does this work?
The lead needs to be completely reconstructed; it discusses the tables and not Space Shuttles themselves. Fails point two of the featured list criteria
- Rewrote the Leade
The title seems too awkward to bold, see MOS:BOLDTITLE.
- Rewrote the leade.
launched between 1981 and 2011 what happened in 2011? Lead doesn't give history of program or the basic purpose of the flights.
- Rewrote the leade.
Watch dead link
- Converted to an archive link.
For "Celebrating 30 Years of the Space Shuttle program", why not just cite it once in a "Bibliography" section and point readers to the appropriate page number with an in-line citation? That would cut down significantly on the page's size.
- Fixed.
The "Notes" section should not be sortable.
- Fixed.
I feel like the "Flight statistics" section is a summation of the other tables and should be placed at the end of the list rather than the beginning. Why isn't that table sortable?
- I agree with that thought, I've moved it. I also fixed the sort bug that prevented me from making it sortable intially.
The "Launch date" column under "Launches and orbital flights" sorts by month rather than by year.
- Done.
Why do you force the tables under "List of shuttle flights" at 95% font size instead of its normal rendering?
- Fixed. That was left over from before I started on the list.

Oppose based on the lead's malnutrition and the list's poor sorting and formatting. Seattle (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am handling these comments. I will notify when I'm done. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 09:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle: I've addressed your comments. If you have any others, I'd be glad to hear them! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ Alright, I have a bunch of comments, but they're honestly not that bad- you can probably fix them, so not opposing.

"They were used" - they is ambiguous, and at this point you haven't said yet that there were multiple space shuttles.
- Fixed.
"indicating scheduling sequence[9] ." - period before ref
- Fixed.
"As with the sequential numbers" - you didn't say that sequential-numbered launches were based on scheduling, so this should be "Both systems of codes were assigned..."
- Fixed.
"With the resumption of flights in 1988" - you haven't yet said that flights were ever stopped
- Fixed.
I'd like it if you said how many flights were in each numbering sequence, as well as the total number.
- Done.
Table one- on sortable tables, you have to link every row, not just the "first" instance, since it changes. E.g. Edwards should be linked all five times.
- Done.
Table one- link Enterprise (each time)
- Done.
Table two- why is the code number bolded? It wasn't in table one.
- It's bolded in Table 1 now.
Table two- mission is sorting oddly (STS-1, STS-100, STS-101, etc.) - put sortkeys so that it sorts as if it was STS-001, STS-002, etc.
- Fixed.
Table two- again, link all shuttles and landing sites
- Done.
"First flight of two women in space Ride and Sullivan; First spacewalk by US woman, Kathryn Sullivan; First Canadian in space Marc Garneau" - you need a comma between space and Ride, and space and Marc; you call her Sullivan and then give her full linked name second, you don't give Ride's full, linked name at all.
- Fixed
You're really inconsistent in how you list multiple items. Sometimes you put a period, sometimes a comma, sometimes a semicolon. I'd almost rather see a bulleted list instead for each row, but for space reasons just stick with semicolons between each item
- I decided to convert to bullets for the same reason you gave. Unfortunetly, this does increase the overall article size, however; it is more readable and easier to edit.
"Planned tracking and data relay satellite deployment, Loss of vehicle and crew, Teacher in Space Flight" - no context and random caps in "Teacher in Space Flight", "Loss" capitalized for no reason
- Fixed.
"first post Challenger flight" - "post-Challenger"
- Fixed.
Link Spacelab whenever you use it in notes
- Fixed.
On some notes you end with a period; these are not complete sentences, so don't
- Fixed.
Inconsistent on italicizing Mir in notes
- Fixed. Also linked all of them.
Link ISS each time you use it outside of "ISS assembly"
- Fixed
"Japanese Experiment Modoule" - typo (twice) and don't link it since it's the Kibo, which you already link
- Fixed.
"After STS-121, the rescue flight for STS-115, if needed, would have been STS-301" - confusing, and wasn't 121 after 115?
- Fixed.
No ref given for first contingency missions paragraph
- Fixed.
Flight stats table- spell out the whole month, not "Apr"
- Fixed.
You pull out Chen into the bibliography, but not Goodwin? Or the other books?
- That's what I get for editing at 3am. Fixed.
cites to Chen should be "Chen, p. 5", not "Chen 5"
- Fixed.
Works like TIME magazine, Florida Today should be italicized ("work="), linked, and formatted properly (Time, not TIME Magazine)
- I didn't know that was a thing. I fixed it.
Be consistent if the publisher is National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA (and link it, either the first time or every time)
- Fixed.
You're formatting dates day-month-year in references, but month-day-year in bibliography (and everywhere else)
- They're all day-month-year now. I did it using a regular expression match script, which may have missed one.

If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing the Hugo Award for Best Fancast FLC down below this one. --Pres N 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~: Note: I am handling these comments. Apologies, I got surprised by an end-of-semester project that is limiting my Wikipedia time. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Give me a ring!} 19:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

@PresN: @Seattle: I have finished handling these comments. I apologize again for the delay, and thank you for your patience (It enabled me to get the A I desperately needed in the class). Seattle, I'm pinging you as well per your talk page. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Give me a ring!} 00:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to Support. --Pres N 17:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list seems to be good for FLC. Under the crew column though, what does 7/7, 7/8, 6/7, 6/6 mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)

Number of crew launched/landed with. I've added a note. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Give me a ring!} 00:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better. The only thing I feel is missing is some more meat to the intro. For example you could have another paragraph discussing the highlights of the 135 missions: longest (with number), mission objectives such as how many went to ISS (how many assembly, how many supply) or Mir (I remember only a few of the SSs could dock ISS), highest (I think the two Hubble ones), the two crashes (with numbers), how many deployed satellites, how many landed at Edwards vs Kennedy (was there a rationale for the landing site?), how many astronauts were on all 135 missions, how many missions had EVA. Also, "Spacehab" and "SPACEHAB"? Some of the notes entires are a bit weird "LAGEOS II" => add "deployment"? Consider looking at each note entry and make sure it makes sense to a non-astronomy expert. Nergaal (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: I went ahead and added the middle paragraph, which includes a ton of statistics. I also tried to clarify a few notes. Hope that works! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Give me a ring!} 07:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, but can still be improved.

Try to answer the question: what was the purpose of all these missions? The second para answers it a bit, but I feel it still doesn't summarize the notes section sufficiently. For example, until #97 almost all missions were some deployment of some sort, while after that it was almost only ISS.
Also, some of the notes aren't very clear: #86 was a deployment? similarly the following notes need some TLC: #10, 17, 22, 32, 49, 56, 62, 65, 68, 71, 75, 77, 80, 83, 86, 88, 92, 97, 113, 127.
"DoD" and EVA is not explained at first use.
It will look better if you use * even for the single-entry notes

Nergaal (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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