Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:09, 18 March 2014

Revision as of 01:44, 27 September 2014

Line 211:

:::Sure, I'm fine with one of your ideas. The point was just that the copyedit left it incorrect on a small technical detail: there weren't four flights made ''in'' August of 2013. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 03:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

::::{{done}}{{mdash}}I changed one instance of "through October" to "by the end of October". Cheers, [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] ([[User talk:Baffle gab1978|talk]]) 23:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

== Good Article? ==

As an editor who has contributed to the development of this article over the past year+, and with a launch scheduled for next month that, if successful, will be a test flight that will be a notable achievement in the [[History of technology|History of human technological advances]], I have wanted to see if the article might be improved up to the quality level expected of Wikipedia ''[[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|Good article]]''.

In fact, if this very first attempt to bring an orbital launch vehicle booster back to the launch site for future reuse is successful—rather than using the technique of the the first sixty years of the space age where orbital booster rockets, including the Shuttle external tank, have just been dumped in the ocean—the article will likely be of interest to a much larger group of Wikipedia readers around the time of that flight.

It therefore seems prudent to take a look at the criteria, as an "insider" who helped edit the article, ''prior'' to nominating the article for GA status. I intend to do that today. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 15:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

===Internal look against the criteria===

{{Box-header

| title= Good Article criteria

| titleforeground= white

| titlebackground= blue

| background= white

}}

To that end, these are the current criteria:

A [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] is—

<ol>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:</li>

<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha">

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}; and</li>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}}.</li>

</ol>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:</li>

<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha">

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2a}};</li>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}}; and</li>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2c}}.</li>

</ol>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:</li>

<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha">

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}}; and</li>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3b}}.</li>

</ol>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.</li>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.</li>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:</li>

<ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha">

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6a}}; and</li>

<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6b}}.</li>

</ol>

</ol>

{{Box-footer| [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|more...]] }}

And here is my (inside) take on the article measuring up.

::::(I'm not saying this makes it GA; only that I wouldn't want to waste the time of outside reviewers if those editors interested in the article have not at least considered the criteria prior to nomination.)

*Well-written:

**Thanks to thorough copyedit by ''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]]'' editor [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] in early February 2014, I believe it meets this criteria.

*Verifiable with no original research:

**The article appears to be well-sourced to reliable sources and inline citations to footnotes.

*Broad in its coverage:

**The article seems to cover all aspects of the technology development program, including the various technologies involved, and the multiple phases of the test program happening at multiple locations around the US.

*Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

**I'm not aware of significant criticism or controversy that is not covered in the article.

*Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

**The article has been quite stable for the past couple of months, with the exception of the GOCE copy edit mentioned above, and has no ongoing content disputes of any kind.

*Illustrated, if possible, by images

**The images used in the article are not as good as some editors would like, including me (N2e). They are not as good as some of the images released to news media on this technology and test program, but those do not have the sort of copyright that we can use in Wikipedia. (see above discussion on the Talk page in December 2013 and Janurary 2014.)

::However, from GA criteria no. 6: "The presence of images is ''not'', in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status ''are'' appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided."

::So I believe it measures up to the minimal GA criteria for images, although we continue to search for better license-appropriate images of this technology development and testing.

Therefore, on net, I do not believe it would be a waste of time to request a formal GA review of the article, and ask some outside editors to come in and review it. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

{{in process}}—I have since nominated the article for a formal GA review. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 18:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/GA1}}

==More sources for future consideration==

* [http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-interview-1212 Triumph of His Will], Esquire Magazine, 15 Nov 2012. A long form magazine piece that includes support material for the necessity of the reusable technology to SpaceX' Mars plans, plus support material for the vertical integration of the rocket manufacturing facility (e.g., aluminum rocket tank domes being brought in-house due to excessively high price offered by Alcoa Aluminum, etc.)<!-- added a cite of it to [[Template:Falcon_1_launch_history]] in Mar 2014 in order to provide a requested citation; could reuse that again in future articles --> plus more: Musk's journey from South Africa through Canada to the US, citizenship, Musk's family, others involved in the formation of the (very short-lived) "Life to Mars" company, and then the formation of SpaceX, early Falcon 1 launch failures, etc. Probably a useful source for several related articles.) [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 19:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

== Test Flight 1/ Test Flight 2 ==

These subject headings maybe should be the actual mission designators? CASSIOPE or SES-8 or Thaicom-6 or what have you.... ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 12:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

== Illustration ==

The Falcon family illustration is helpful but can it be put more into chrono order? The versions with legs should be to the right of those without. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 12:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

:I have added your comment to the Talk page for the SVG graphic file on Wikimedia: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Falcon_rocket_family.svg] Maybe someone with the right skillset and editing tools can update the file. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 02:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)