Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Spaceflight articles by quality and importance, Quality ...
Main page   Discussion   Members   Assessment
Popular pages   Open tasks   Recognized content     Awards   Portal
Spaceflight articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 6 30 15 8 59
FL 3 4 4 11
FM 124 124
A 1 2 1 4
GA 12 26 34 59 3 134
B 16 78 196 241 8 539
C 44 170 611 882 1 77 1,785
Start 15 133 1,024 2,729 508 4,409
Stub 5 194 1,970 303 2,472
List 11 119 111 244 1 46 532
Category 1,284 1,284
Disambig 47 47
File 275 275
Portal 55 55
Project 108 108
Redirect 2 42 143 1,254 1,441
Template 533 533
NA 1 1
Other 44 44
Assessed 105 566 2,233 6,281 3,727 945 13,857
Unassessed 1 6 1 124 132
Total 105 567 2,233 6,287 3,728 1,069 13,989
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 45,906 Ω = 4.88

The assessment segment of WikiProject Spaceflight focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Spaceflight and Space Exploration articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.


Progress

We would like to assess all Spaceflight-related articles for quality as well as importance.

Recent changes

Targets

Importance targets
ImportanceNumber
of articles
Top100
High500
Mid2500


Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} project banner on its talk page: To assess an article, using the rating scheme described below, fill in the parameters on the Spaceflight banner on the article's talk page:

{{WikiProject Spaceflight |class= |importance= }}

Request new assessment

You can request an article is assessed. If you are not sure what the assessment should be or have recently done work to an article, list the article at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment/Requests, along with what changes have occured since the last assessment and if you wish, quality, importance or both to be reassessed.

Class

{{WikiProject Spaceflight|class=???|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Importance

{{WikiProject Spaceflight|class=???|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale

The criteria for assessing the quality of articles are based based on the assessment standards of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. When the scopes of our project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history overlap, their criteria for A and B-Class status should take precedence. Otherwise:

WikiProject Spaceflight prose article grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
FA Reserved for articles that have received featured article status after community review.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Hubble Space Telescope
A A-Class articles are assessed by two editors within the project to determine that they are close to featured article status. Submit a request for an assessment the same way you would for a B-class article; the only difference is two reviewers will assess it.
More detailed criteria
Articles should be checked against the following criteria:
  1. Well-written: The article is well-written and contains no spelling or grammatical errors, it adheres to the relevant sections of the manual of style
  2. Comprehensive: The article covers every relevant aspect of its subject in sufficient detail, including background information, but is not unnecessarily long due to trivial or irrelevant information
  3. Referencing and citation: The article is supported with inline citations to reliable sources for all claims, and these citations are appropriately formatted
  4. Neutral: The article is accurate and unbiased, none of its content is disputed, and it is not the subject of any edit warring
  5. Structure: The article is well structured, consisting of a lead which summarizes the rest of the article, and a reasonable number of sections containing more detailed information
  6. Media: The article contains images relevant to the illustrate subject, accompanied with captions and alt text

Additionally, the article should meet all B-class criteria

Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to "tweak" the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. None
GA Reserved for articles that have received Good article status after community review.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet the good article criteria:

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. CryoSat-2
B The article is mostly complete, without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the following criteria:
  1. Referencing and citation: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. The citations are not just raw URLs
  2. Coverage and accuracy: The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
  3. Structure: The article has a defined structure. This should consist of a lead section and appropriately divided sections.
  4. Grammar and style: The article is reasonably well-written. There are no significant errors in spelling or grammar, and no outstanding cleanup issues
  5. Supporting materials: The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. This should include relevant images if any are available, and an infobox if one exists.

Additionally, that the article should meet all the C class criteria

No reader should be left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style. Jules Verne ATV
C The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the following criteria:
  1. Referencing and citation: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. The citations are not just raw URLs
  2. Coverage and accuracy: The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Some aspects, particularly the background, may still be covered in less detail than would be desirable, however no critical information should be absent.
  3. Structure: The article has a defined structure. This should consist of a lead section and appropriately divided sections.
  4. Grammar and style: The article is reasonably well-written. There are no significant errors in spelling or grammar, and no outstanding cleanup issues
  5. Supporting materials: The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. This should include relevant images if any are available, and an infobox if one exists.
  6. Accessibility: The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way although it should not be "dumbed down". Technical terms should be explained or at least linked.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. Eugene Cernan
Start The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, may lack one or more key elements, and may require serious cleanup. It should have at least one serious element of content, and should not meet the definition of a stub.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. Sputnik 2
Stub The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information which will require a large amount of work to achieve recognition. It meets the general definition of a Stub.
More detailed criteria
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.
 Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. International Designator
List article grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
FL Reserved for articles that have received featured article status after community review.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. List of ISS spacewalks
List Meets the criteria of a Stand-alone List, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of space agencies
Classes for pages that are not articles
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called. Be aware not to over-categorise and to be careful of maintaining a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles. Category:Russian cosmonauts
Disambig Any disambiguation page falls under this class. Serves to distinguish article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. Pay particular attention to the proper naming of disambiguation articles, they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. Mercury 1
File Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. Images are used to help explain articles by providing examples of style, lay-out, logo, or other typical visual aspects. Many images are fair use and should be used sparingly. Public domain or Creative Commons / GFDL licensed images can be used more freely. Editors need to ensure that images have correct licenses, fair use rationales (where applicable), and are only used in articles for which they have such rationale. Fair use images should not be used as pure decoration. Image:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg
Portal Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. Portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content. Editors need to ensure the portal is kept updated and displays properly, updating news sections and looking out for red links. Portal:Spaceflight
Project All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development, and are probably not useful to readers. Develop these pages into collaborative resources useful for improving articles within the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight
Redirect Any redirect in the article namespace falls under this class. A redirect takes reader to another article relevant to the article they wanted. Ensure article is still redirect, otherwise re-assess. HEASARC
(as of December 2010)
Template Is any type of template. The most common types of template used in the WikiProject are infoboxes and navboxes. Serves different purposes depending upon the type of template. Infoboxes go at the upper right of a page and are a way of providing easy access to important pieces of introductory infomation about the subject. Navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page, and are for the purpose of uniting a group of related articles into an easily accessible format for inclusion on every page listed in the navbox. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. Template:Shenzhou program
NA Is not an article, and fits no other classification. Probably not useful to any casual reader, these are typically only WikiProject pages. Look out for mis-classified articles. Currently many NA-class articles need to be re-classified. None

Importance scale

The articles are rated for their importance to spaceflight. When making importance assessments, it may be helpful to ask, "How important would it be for the topic of spaceflight to include this article in an abridged version of the encyclopedia?"

Three different ways of expressing the priority of articles are currently used.

  1. The importance, significance and depth of the topic within its particular field or subject.
  2. The extent of the topic's impact, usually in the sense of "impact beyond its particular field", but it is also used to express global impact, and impact through history.
  3. The bottom line: how important is it for an encyclopaedia to have an article on the given topic?

These are often different ways of saying the same thing, but the current WP 1.0 summary table mixes the three approaches: Top priority is described using method 3, High and Mid priority using method 1, and Low priority using method 2.

The table below of possible spaceflight importance levels provides more detail on the meaning of the individual levels, as well as examples.

Spaceflight article importance rating scheme
Priority Description Concepts Spaceflights and spacecraft People Other
Top An absolute "must-have" spaceflight article. Top 5–10 conceptual articles Top 10–20 individual spaceflights, and top 5–10 spacecraft types Top 5–10 key historical figures, astronauts who achieved significant firsts Major space agencies
High Very much needed, even vital, spaceflight articles. Main concepts and components of spaceflight High-profile single spaceflights, highly-used "series" spacecraft Astronauts of above-average notability; including Vostok cosmonauts and Mercury Seven, people who have flown beyond Earth orbit
Mid Adds further depth, but not vital to spaceflight. Most well-known concepts and components of spaceflight Most non-routine spaceflights, most crewed spaceflights All professional astronauts who took part in a spaceflight, and aren't high or top importance
Low Not at all essential, or can be covered adequately by other articles. Most spacecraft subsystems Routine spaceflights, many non-unique spacecraft Professional astronauts who have not taken part in a spaceflight, most people not crucially related to spaceflight. Cancelled missions
(None) This rating is not used. There is a Category:Unknown-importance spaceflight articles for articles which have a spaceflight rating, but no importance level: editors should feel free either to assign an importance level (Low-Priority or higher) or remove the spaceflight banner from these articles, if they are outside the project's scope.
  • Comment: Some articles are not relevant enough to the spaceflight project to need a rating.

Requests for assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. B-Class requests are assessed using the six B-class criteria.

Articles to be assessed

(Add request)

Draft:List of Launches review

71.183.212.131 (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm afraid neither of these articles can be approved. The first has a weird formatting problem where every word in the lede is linked, and the second duplicates our Timeline articles. If you'd like some mentoring on how to produce usable Spaceflight articles, I'll be happy to assist. :) Just leave me a message on my Talk page. --Neopeius (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I understood and fixed the issue on the first article. My second article is a list of every single launch, which is obviously going to have most of it’s launches covered elsewhere, but not all are. Can you rereview the first one and explain more clearly the issue with the second one? Thank you!
@Terasail: If you check my talk page, you'll see the conversation I've been having with this editor regarding these drafts. --Neopeius (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Vega launches – C-Class  – Low importance  review

71.183.212.131 (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I have assessed this as a list class article and it is low importance at the moment. Terasail[✉] 14:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:List of Atlas LV3A launches – C-Class  – Low importance  review

71.183.212.131 (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please review his article for C-Class? Thanks in advance.

List of Delta 4-M launches – C-Class  – Mid importance  review

71.183.212.131 (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX floating launch platform review

Somewhat recently created, no rating on quality or importance.
N828335 (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Got it. Called it "Start" class and deleted two superfluous commas. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

[[Draft:Starship SN11]] review

64.121.103.144 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

[[Draft:Starship SN15]] review

64.121.103.144 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Mariner 1

Hello, all!

Normally I'm not reticent about rating my own articles up to B class, but given the high visibility of the Mariner missions, and since I plan to reuse much of the text I've done on this latest article for Mariner 2, I wonder if a friend could review Mariner 1 and determine if it be a B (and if you think it good enough for GA, let me know, and I'll start that process). Once I'm confident in the language, I can get to work on Mariner 2. :)

Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Interstellar Express – B-Class  – Mid importance  review

I have been working on this article for about two and a half months now and I feel it has gotten up to par. I have added images of its flyby targets and the schematics for the actual probe itself, and even found primary sources detailing the spacecraft itself. I also translated the page to Chinese so people in China (where the probe is actually from) can actually view the article for itself (the grammar may be a bit off, but it could be fixed). I am unsure how important the spacecraft actually is, but I feel it should be just as important as Trident, considering they both are targeting the same planet.
TheWhistleGag (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for this fine start on the article. A couple of things I would want to see before getting to B-class: there are some awkward phrasings and non sequiturs in the text -- I recommend reading the article aloud to spot the sharp corners. Also, you indicate that details are scant but briefly touch on the experiments that may be carried. Is there really no listing at all? Nor even a proposed rocket to be used? --Neopeius (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello ~Neopeius! Thank you for giving me these criteria. I have updated the page and I hope that it fits these criteria better than it used to. I have removed non-sequiturs and made sure that the text flowed better together. TheWhistleGag (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sojourner (rover) – B-Class  – Mid importance  review

I rewrote this article some time ago, translated parts from the Intalian FA, and uploaded better images. English is not my native lang, so please review it. (In theory, I'd like to nominate it to GA, but I'm not sure about it.)
Artem.G (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Quite a good article! I gave it a B. For GA, you'll want to link some of the more abstruse technical terms like spectrometer. I also always recommend reading an article aloud to catch awkward bits. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I will re-read and link tech terms. :) Artem.G (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Soyuz TM-22 review

Found some sources and added it to the article. I'm new, but I'd like a sanity check before I continue on with others. I'm not sure the rating system. Thanks in advance!
Kilawyn Punx (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Good article. Well the addition of more sources is great, it still lacks enough sources for a higher quality class. It is also lacking in supporting material. Well there are plenty of images provided, 4 of the 7 are practically identical, and do little to support the article. The addition of other images from the mission would improve the article. I've given it a start rating due to lacking references. James Denesuk (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess the issue is this: this article, and the one preceding it, are now extremely thorough chronologies of these two TM missions. And yet, is it really appropriate to have this chronology of events happening to the station the TM was attached to? The TM isn't doing anything but sitting there. I should think a more useful article format would be to have a short background of the TM Soyuz, describe the crew and launch, perhaps have a paragraph on significant ISS actions that occurred during its docking, and then describe the capsule's return to Earth, followed by a Legacy section describing where it is now, references in the media, etc.
In other words, folks aren't going to Soyuz TM-22 for info on Expedition 20 -- they go to Expedition 20 for that. I think this long article on incidentally related station activities is the wrong format. If there is information in your articles not currently in the Expedition 20 page, then by all means, find ways to incorporate them there.
My two cents. :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you. The long term nature of the missions is what I'm really interested in (and the space research!) but the Expedition articles for the most part (except 19 because it started with a shuttle mission) are just redirects to the Soyuz articles. Being new I didn't feel comfortable creating a bunch of articles for the long term missions, but I can create them and move the information over if you and James would feel that would be a better way to present the information. Thanks for the feedback, it's exactly the kind I was looking for! Kilawyn Punx (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

European Robotic Arm – C-Class  – Low importance  review

I've spent the last several months working on the article. Since I've started the article has become around seven times the original size. I'm hoping that at this point the article has improved in quality that in theory could be nominated to a GA rating, but I'm unsure if it's reached that point yet.
James Denesuk (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Rocket Lab – GA-Class  – Mid importance  review

Starship SN20 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
C class. Last sentence of "Launch Complex 1" needs a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Fixed and is now B class. How well does it stack up against the GA class criteria now @Hawkeye7 Starship 24 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade – C-Class  – Low importance  review

New article, though not a very fleshy one!
Sub31k (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
C class. Last sentences of the first two paragraphs of "Design" and the first of "Development" need a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yaogan – C-Class  – Low importance  review

Page overhaul
RightQuark (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

List of Vega launches – GA-Class  – Mid importance  review

SpaceX Starship Development – B-Class  – Mid importance  review

This article was already reviewed. Thank you!

Rocket lab – B-Class  – Mid importance  review

Already reviewed, thank you!

Summary

Please review as a starting point for the Artemis program.
Starship 24 (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Frank E. Rom – B-Class  review

Created last year. Only just tagged by WP:BIO Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 Assessed B class for Spaceflight and Biography. Donner60 (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

RD-0146 – C or Start-Class  – Low importance  review

This article is, in my opinion, no longer a stub.
Sub31k (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Made it start class El Wikipedian (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter – C-Class  – Mid importance  review

I believe I've fixed most of the issues on this page. It used to be a GA, but it got delisted. I'm working on bringing it back up, and I think it's pretty close.
ARandomName123 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Albert I – Start-Class  – High importance  review

can someone please reassess quality on Albert I? it's listed as a high-importance stub right now, just expanded the article a bit

Jone425 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
It was reassessed to C .cynthialune (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Reusable spacecraft – B-Class  – low importance  review

I've put a lot of work into overhauling this page, and would love to know where it could still use improvements. I'd love to get it to GA class but would like a benchmark.
Alpacaaviator (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for working on this article! I would say my biggest issues with the piece, and what would hold me back from giving it a "B" (which, for most purposes, is virtually the same as "GA" in terms of quality):
  • There's no narrative. It reads like a set of bullet points. Even the lead is unnecessarily split into two lines.
  • Many of the lines don't have citations after them. If some of the lines have citations covered by the next line, then consider deleting the carriage return between them.
If you want an example of what a fleshed out article with more connective tissue looks like, my Mariner 1 might be a good example. Or perhaps R-2 (missile) is better, since that covers a program rather than a one-off. Or maybe Galactic Radiation and Background. I'm @galacticjourney on Discord, by the way. Happy to personally advise. --Neopeius (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Close

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI