Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment/Requests

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.

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)

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)

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)