Talk:Rocket Lab/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Me Da Wikipedian (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: I'll review this one. Having looked through the article's history, I see that I have made three edits, but nothing of substance, hence I should be all good. Schwede66 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me Da Wikipedian, looks like this review is waiting on you, so this is a reminder ping. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asilvering, what's the rules around failing this? I've only reviewed criterion 1, but we aren't getting there. Do I have to review the other five criteria, or can I fail this now? Schwede 66 19:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's "a long way away" from meeting the GA criteria, you can fail it at any time. Since both you and the nominator have already spent so much effort on it, I think it would be nice to at least give some general remarks about the other criteria before failing. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering @Schwede66 Yeah I'm sorry I'm not very active. I can't work on it today but I'll try tommorrow. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66, @Me Da Wikipedian, this review should probably either be finished or closed for inactivity in the next couple days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66, I would recommend closure of this review at this time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811, I plan to review the other four criteria today as suggested by aslivering above. Schwede 66 21:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, I've finally completed this review by looking at the remaining five criteria so that it's useful for future editors who might want to have another crack at GA. Schwede 66 04:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

A New Zealand company now headquartered in the United States. That immediately raises date format and English variety issues. It's set to use dmy dates and with this edit in September 2019—when the article used a mix of English varieties—a use American English tag was set. Just recording this here before I give the article a read. Schwede 66 22:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lfstevens@Schwede66 I think that, outside of the lead references, this is done, am I correct? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's just the top-level heading for this part of the review. Date format and language variant are fine, though, if that's what you mean. Schwede 66 02:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 No I meant "Is this article fine on this part of the criteria (lead exlucded)?" Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sub-headings have been responded to. I haven't checked whether the work has been done and the only thing that's missing are the responses below. Schwede 66 21:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead (1)

Hyphenate full time. When you mention United States Space Force, please also introduce the abbreviation "(USSF)". Schwede 66 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at my lead comments further below before you attend to this. Schwede 66 01:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done When you mention United States Space Force, please also introduce the abbreviation "(USSF)" – this is outstanding. Schwede 66 02:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origin (2006–2012)

Please wikilink sounding rocket. And just in case you wanted to illustrate the initial co-director, we do have good photos for Mark Rocket (Q117349392). Schwede 66 05:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I don't really think there very much room for another image, do you disagree? @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Schwede 66 02:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States move (2013–2020)

Not sure about aerothermal; outside Wikipedia, it's sometimes spelled as one word and sometimes as two. Your choice; just want you to be deliberate. Consider replacing recover/reuse with recover and reuse. You use first-stage (i.e. it being hyphenated), but the other seven occurrences in the article are not hyphenated. I suggest it shouldn't be hyphenated in this instance either. In this paragraph, you use US $x twice. There are two issues with it. Firstly, it should not be a space after "US". Secondly, you should only use the US qualifier once as the currency does not change in this paragraph. Schwede 66 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66I'm going to keep aerothermal since other Rocket Lab related articles have it like that. First-stage is fixed. The space is fixed (but not by me). The currency does change to NZ$ in the paragraph, actually.

If you look at the histroy, you'll notice that I actually did not author the large majority of this article (and my main contributions were in sourcing). Its split between a bunch of different authors and I think thats part of why theres so much inconstistency. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter why there is inconsistency. You have nominated it for GA, and it's thus up to you to make it a good article. :-) Schwede 66 20:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Consider replacing recover/reuse with recover and reuse (you may have considered it, but if you decide against it, I expect you to tell me why). You use first-stage (i.e. it being hyphenated), but the other ~~seven~~ six occurrences in the article are not hyphenated. I suggest it shouldn't be hyphenated in this instance either. In this paragraph, you use US $x twice. ... Firstly, it should not be a space after "US" (you've fixed it in this paragraph, but not in the rest of the article). Secondly, you should only use the US qualifier once as the currency does not change in this paragraph (you correctly point out that it changes between US and NZ currencies; my comment was supposed to go into the next section where it does not swap currencies – sorry for that). Schwede 66 02:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public company (2021–)

Amend the information in brackets to show 2021–present as the current setup violates MOS:DATETOPRES. Schwede 66 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done "you should only use the US qualifier once as the currency does not change in this paragraph" moved to here from the paragraph above. Schwede 66 03:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electron orbital rocket

The sentence part 150 kg to a 500 km should use two convert templates. It says but telemetry was lost and it was destroyed but it's not clear from the sentence that it was flight control that destroyed the rocket; I suggest you spell that out. fibre is British English. When you talk about the width of Humanity Star, it's after an adjective and you need to use hyphens. This is achieved by using {{convert|1|m|ft|sp=us|adj=mid|-wide}}. The synthetic-aperture radar target article is hyphenated, and I can't see why you wouldn't hyphenate this here as well. It says which marked a record 10th flight for the rocket in 2023 and it's unclear to me what the record refers to. Maybe it just needs more context. This paragraph finishes with these sentences: Two attempts have been made to recover an Electron booster by helicopter. In addition, six attempts have been made at soft water recovery. Were these attempts successful? It shouldn't be up to the reader to check the references for the outcome; might as well state it here. More later. Schwede 66 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The sentence part 150 kg to a 500 km should use two convert templates. It says which marked a record 10th flight for the rocket in 2023 and it's unclear to me what the record refers to. Maybe it just needs more context. This paragraph finishes with these sentences: Two attempts have been made to recover an Electron booster by helicopter. In addition, six attempts have been made at soft water recovery. Were these attempts successful? It shouldn't be up to the reader to check the references for the outcome; might as well state it here. Schwede 66 02:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HASTE suborbital rocket

I could not understand this sentence: HASTE (Hypersonic Accelerator Suborbital Test Electron) is a suborbital testbed derived from the Electron orbital rocket. I had to Google what a "suborbital testbed" is and learned that it's a "suborbital testbed launch vehicle", and then it all makes sense. You might want to explain this better. Other than that, you need to use the convert template where needed, there's a missing space after a date, and "2" needs to be spelled out as "two". You have three successive sentences start with "HASTE" and that's a style problem. Schwede 66 04:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"launch vehicle" was added. Convert template are now used and two is spelled out. 3 successive sentences were also fixed. Fixed some typos as well. @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Schwede 66 02:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron reusable rocket

Hyphenate human rated. Use the convert template for 13 and 15 ton and note that it's another adjectival use occasion (i.e. you need to hyphenate). Wikilink Scott Manley. Avoid the use of ampersands. Consider a comma after reusable. Refer to Peter Beck by his surname only. Once you've introduced the abbreviation for Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, you might as well use it. I suggest that Launch Complex 2 should have a non-breaking space between "Complex" and "2" throughout the article (this is just the first instance). And the last sentence in this section does not parse well; please rephrase it. Schwede 66 04:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this was already done my someone else, except for the convert templates. For those templates what units do you want to convert to?@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Use the convert template for 13 and 15 ton and note that it's another adjectival use occasion (i.e. you need to hyphenate). Usually, when info comes from the United States, when they say "ton" or "tonne", what they actually mean is "Short ton". Therefore, the correct conversion would be to the metric tonne: {{convert|13|and|15|ST|t|sp=us|adj=mid}} Schwede 66 02:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I suggest that Launch Complex 2 should have a non-breaking space between "Complex" and "2" throughout the article. You've done that for Complex 2 and yes, I didn't spell out that it needs to be done for Complex 1 as well, but the problem is obviously the same. Schwede 66 02:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a non-breaking space?@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the source editor, you have a button for it when you display "Wiki markup"; it's labelled " ". If you use the Visual Editor, I couldn't tell you how you do it. Schwede 66 03:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ātea sounding rocket

Hyphenate 6 m (20 ft) long. I would place commas like so: The 6 m (20 ft) long rocket, weighing approximately 60 kg (130 lb), was. I couldn't explain why but as a New Zealander, you would not place "the" in front of Coromandel Peninsula (if you are interested in the underlying reason, I could ask around). The rocket was tracked by GPS – I suggest you consider an "a" before "GPS".

I don't understand what you are saying here: The rocket was tracked by GPS uplink to the Inmarsat-B satellite constellation.[152][153] After the flight, Ātea-1 splashed down approximately 50 km (31 mi) downrange. The payload had no telemetry downlink, but had instrumentation including the launch vehicle's uplink to Inmarsat. What confuses me is the "GPS uplink" terminology; it seems that an uplink is something that comes from a terrestrial station (which a rocket is not). Anyway, if it's correct as is, why does it need to be mentioned twice that there's an uplink to Inmarsat? And in the last sentence, what does apply the entire team mean? Schwede 66 05:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been done by someone else. I admitedly didn't write those sentences, but presumably the uplink was from a terrestrial station and we to the satellite constellation. I remove the second mention of the Inmarsat uplink Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Schwede 66 03:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photon satellite bus

This appears to be a double up: Depending on the orbital inclination (37° to Sun-synchronous orbit), it is expected to have a maximum payload capacity of 170 kg (370 lb). The low Earth orbit version of Photon can take 170 kg (370 lb) to Sun-synchronous orbit. And later on, two concepts are being mixed up: HyperCurie is an evolution of the Curie engine, which comes in a monopropellant version and a bipropellant version, while the HyperCurie is hypergolic. HyperCurie is electrically pumped. Maybe consider something like so: "The Curie engine comes in monopropellant and bipropellant versions. The HyperCurie, which is an evolution of the Curie engine, is hypergolic." Trans Lunar Injection burn should be lower case, needs a hyphen, and should wikilink to trans-lunar injection.

This sentence is hard to parse and too long: On that mission, the Electron rocket lifted First Light and the customer satellite, Capella 2, to orbit and then the First Light satellite, as a kick stage, inserted the customer satellite into its orbit and then went on to begin its own orbital mission as a standalone satellite. The sentence containing 55 pounds needs a unit conversion. What is a halo-shaped orbit? Unless we are talking about the US Independence Day, July 4th Photon's should presumably be 4 July, Photon's (please note the comma). I'd say in-house designed needs two hyphens. Spell out "four" in 4 variations. Nice application of MOS:SUFFIXDASH, by the way! The last sentence needs a couple of commas like so: mission and, as of July 2023, was. Schwede 66 08:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by an excerpt. Lfstevens (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This appears to be a double up: Depending on the orbital inclination (37° to Sun-synchronous orbit), it is expected to have a maximum payload capacity of 170 kg (370 lb). The low Earth orbit version of Photon can take 170 kg (370 lb) to Sun-synchronous orbit. (tell me if those are different concepts; it's not clear to me) The use of an excerpt introduces the issue that one paragraph is unreferenced. Schwede 66 03:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 Fixed in Rocket Lab Photon, done. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viscous liquid monopropellant

I'd say that Viscous Liquid Monopropellant is not a proper noun and should thus not be capitalised. I suggest that pseudo solid should be hyphenated. Schwede 66 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Schwede 66 03:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Eyes

UAV needs to be spelled out before you can introduce this abbreviation. 5 Mega pixel camera should read "5 megapixel-camera". 2,500 feet needs a unit-conversion. Schwede 66 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done 5 Mega pixel camera should read "5 megapixel-camera". 2,500 feet needs a unit-conversion. Schwede 66 03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing

Italicise The Jetsons. As per WP:GEOCOMMA, you need a comma after "Toronto" in Toronto, Canada through. Should mega constellation be one word and link to satellite internet constellation? I suggest that the last sentence in this section is too long. Schwede 66 08:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lfstevens thanks for all the work on the article. I'll be able to get to some stuff soon as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots to do! Welcome in. Lfstevens (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Sorry, I made a mistake; this should have read: As per WP:GEOCOMMA, you need a comma after "~~Toronto~~ Canada" in Toronto, Canada through. Schwede 66 03:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Complex 1

The company's Launch Complex 1 (LC-1) is a private orbital launch site located on the Māhia Peninsula in New Zealand. Gadfium, could you please confirm that the definite article before "Māhia Peninsula" should be omitted? It sounds wrong to my ears, but the definite article can also be found in the Māhia Peninsula article. The same goes for Kaitorete Spit; don't put a definite article in front of it. One instance of Māhia is missing its macron. The word usually should be omitted. Schwede 66 08:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of local custom, but Wairoa District Council appears to use "the Mahia peninsula" e.g. https://www.wairoadc.govt.nz/services/airport/drones/ but doesn't if it's part of a list, e.g. https://www.wairoadc.govt.nz/our-district/freedom-camping/ (see the white text on blue background at the top of the page).-Gadfium (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The same goes for Kaitorete Spit; don't put a definite article in front of it. One instance of Māhia is missing its macron. The word usually should be omitted. Schwede 66 03:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Complex 2

In late 2018, the company selected the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility as their second launch site. The selection was announced in October 2018. As "late 2018" and "October 2018" is the same, can this be simplified? The first Electron launch from LC-2 happened on 24 January 2023 during the "Virginia is for launch lovers" mission, named in celebration of the inaugural launch from LC-2. As "first ... launch" and "inaugural launch" are identical concepts, can this be simplified? Please spell out "three" in 3 satellites. And the last sentence violates MOS:SINCE and needs to be modified to avoid this problem: Since then, two more missions have been launched from LC-2. Schwede 66 09:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Complex 3

This is probably the weakest section in terms of prose. It sounds a bit speculative. Maybe you could greatly simplify it by saying something along the lines of: "A third lauch pad, named ..., was under construction by October 2023. This site will be for Neutron and will be (has been?) named Launch pad 0D (LP-0D). The site is between LP-0A and LP-0B." Schwede 66 09:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done A new issue that I overlooked is that you need to spell out "3" as per MOS:SPELL09. Schwede 66 03:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "Launch Complex 3" not "Launch Complex Three" anywhere. It is also I think one of the listed exceptions in the linked policy. @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, brain fart. You are right, of course. Schwede 66 00:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead (2)

The lead has about the right length (just under 400 words) but in too many paragraphs (aim for three; four at the most). As per MOS:LEADCITE, only controversial content should be cited and I suggest that there is nothing that could be regarded as controversial. Yet, you have about 30 citations in the lead, and I recommend that they all go; those references should appear where the relevant content is cited in the body of the article.

Looking at the lead in more detail and comparing it to what the article covers, I find that it has a non-logical structure, it contains material that is not in the body (e.g. the number of employees), and significant omissions (e.g. Peter Beck is such a prominent person that he must be mentioned in the lead). A logical structure for the lead would closely follow the structure of the article: the company’s history (including locations and acquisitions), the hardware that it produces, and the facilities that it operates.

I suggest that you:

shift the sources to the body of the article,
ensure that everything that is contained in the lead is contained in the body, and
once that’s done, wipe the lead and write a new one from scratch.

Sorry, I appreciate that this is a bit of work but I guarantee you that you will have a much better article as a result! Schwede 66 01:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd like to do at this point is to give the nominator a chance to deal with the lead. As verifiability is the next criterion to check, but I've suggested that all references should be shifted out of the lead, I'd like to see this work done before I continue my review. Schwede 66 01:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the entire lead might take me a bit, perhaps you could go out of order (or this not allowed)? @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no particular rush. I'd rather review the finished product. Take your time. And there's no need to ping me from this evaluation page; I've got that on my watchlist. Schwede 66 20:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took a stab. Lfstevens (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested that all references should be shifted out of the lead. That hasn't happened yet. Schwede 66 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 but aren't the refs needed in the lead as well to verify the info there? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read MOS:LEADCITE. Schwede 66 22:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That basically says both are valid. So why would we go and change something for something that is already fine as is?@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not say that. It says complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Another way to check how to interpret guidance is to look at Featured Articles and how it's done there. There are seven spaceflight articles rated top importance and FA quality. Between them, they have 22 citations in their leads, i.e. an average of 3. Of those, 6 are for quotes (and you could argue that they should always be cited). In my view, some of them are overcited, e.g. Hubble Space Telescope with 7. Be that as it may, that average shows that 31 citations in a lead is an outlier. Schwede 66 05:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fair. Do you think we should just remove all refs or keep a few (and if so which ones). @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statements that may be considered "controversial" where a reference might be justified are:

made the organization the first private company in the Southern Hemisphere to reach space
As of June 2024, the company had approximately 2,000 full-time permanent employees globally

I'd delete the rest / transfer those references to the body (in case the lead is the only place where they are). But also, is everything that's stated in the lead actually in the body? When I read the lead the other day, after first having worked my way through the body, I found quite a few bits that were just in the lead. It's also a tad long, and not all key facts are included. That's why I concluded that it might be best to start from scratch. Schwede 66 02:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done What's happening with this? Schwede 66 03:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

There's quite a bit referenced through primary sources. This should ideally be avoided when it comes to claims that could be controversial (e.g. company takeovers; "flight control destroyed it"), announcing commercial arrangements ("As of November 2023 Rocket Lab had contracted for at least six HASTE missions"), where the language is bombastic (e.g. "state-of-the-art production facility"), or where their products are advertised ("The material is designed to be strong and lightweight").

I'm never thrilled about Tweets being used as references (i.e. the last three references), but at least there's nothing controversial conveyed.

With regards to copyright violations, I could not find a copyright statement on the NASA website that covers text. Given that it's a US govt agency, I assume it's freely available. However, the reference must show the relevant license, and that's not the case here. With the second instance, it's crystal-clear, as CNBC retains their copyright:

Article:

CAPSTONE is a microwave oven–sized CubeSat weighing 55 pounds and is the first spacecraft to test a unique, elliptical lunar orbit. As a pathfinder for the Lunar Gateway, a Moon-orbiting outpost that is part of NASA’s Artemis program, CAPSTONE will help reduce risk for future spacecraft by validating innovative navigation technologies and verifying the dynamics of this halo-shaped orbit.

Source (NASA):

A microwave oven–sized CubeSat weighing just 55 pounds is the first spacecraft to test a unique, elliptical lunar orbit as part of the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment (CAPSTONE). As a pathfinder for Gateway, a Moon-orbiting outpost that is part of NASA’s Artemis program, CAPSTONE will help reduce risk for future spacecraft by validating innovative navigation technologies and verifying the dynamics of this halo-shaped orbit.

Article:

The transaction added $777 million in gross cash. ... Rocket Lab's launch business booked revenues of $13.5 million in 2018, $48 million in 2019 and an estimated $33 million in 2020.

Source (CNBC):

the transaction added $777 million in gross cash ... Rocket Lab's launch business booked revenues of $13.5 million in 2018, $48 million in 2019 and an estimated $33 million in 2020.

Hence, in its current state, the article needs further work. Schwede 66 03:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

I find that the article address the main aspects. I'm less certain that it stays focussed without going into unnecessary details. There are five {{Template:Main}} links within the article, and what's there could and maybe should reflect a well-written lead from the target article. If we look at Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1, for example, we find a concise and non-technical lead at the target article. I would argue that the lead is not broad enough and Rocket Lab goes into the history of Kaitorete Spit, which is fine and justifiable. But other aspects of the Launch Complex 1 section are very technical and it would seem more appropriate to me to have the write up more high-level, and to leave the intricate details to the target article. Schwede 66 03:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The only concerns that I have here is already outlined above. For some content that may be considered promotional, there need to be secondary sources. If those sources exist, I'd say that all is good. If they don't, then that points towards the prose not being neutral. Schwede 66 03:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

Zero concerns. If anything, it's "too stable" (not enough response to my feedback). Schwede 66 03:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated

Nicely illustrated; no concerns here. Schwede 66 03:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

I've marked the GA nomination as failed. The biggest issue is the lead; as I stated, content needs to be distributed throughout the article, references moved to the body (almost all of them), then the lead ought to be nuked and rewritten from scratch. Other issues from criterion 1 are much more minor in nature. As for the other criteria, I've outlined what needs to be worked on if somebody would like to achieve GA status at some future point. I hope that my feedback has been helpful in outlining why this article isn't there yet. Schwede 66 04:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]