Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1951 in spaceflight/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

1951 in spaceflight[edit]

1951 in spaceflight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the timeline articles are of the utmost important to WP:SPFLT -- and the universe at large! :) Neopeius (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments on the lead
  • The lead does not read like a stand-alone introduction to (or summary of) the article. It reads more like a paragraph within a longer chapter eg "The year 1951 saw the Soviet Union definitively advancing beyond the V-2" - no context as to what the V-2 was. This reads like the V-2 has already been introduced/explained, but of course it hasn't because this is the first sentence. Each article (and its lead) should essentially stand alone and not require the reader to have read other articles to understand the context.
  • "While the United States did not field any new boosters during the year" - again, no context supplied. Had they fielded new boosters the previous year? Every year since 1940-something? With no context supplied, this sentence is essentially meaningless. For that matter, what even is a booster?
  • "both the U.S.A.F. and the U.S. Army" - need linking or expanding (especially USAF - what do these initials even mean?)
  • "Meanwhile, the Navy fired" - which Navy? Pretty much every country in the world has a Navy.....
  • Image caption is not a complete sentence, so shouldn't have a full stop
  • Will look at the rest later......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, @ChrisTheDude: -- I shall amend to make things more clear and stand-alone! --Neopeius (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Alright. I've reorganized and improved the lead as well as given the rest a much-needed proofread. It should be smoother sailing now. Thank you for your attention! --Neopeius (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! I'll give it a full review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Spaceflight before 1951 FLC

I haven't reviewed this list fully, but from my review of Spaceflight before 1951 for its FLC, there are several major issues that carry over to this list: namely, the table formatting and the use of Encyclopedia Astronautica. I've put a more thorough explanation there (link). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Answered at Spaceflight before 1951 :) Someone's going to have to tell me what to do with the table since it's a problem endemic to ALL of the timeline articles. And Wade should be just good enough. --Neopeius (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RunningTiger123: Now that Before 1951 is in shape, I went through 1951 and made the same improvements (citation name order, flag fix, table fix, pie chart fix). Let me know if there's anything left to do. :)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
  • Now that the before 1951 list is sorted out, please copy over the structural changes from there- e.g. one table per section, instead of sections inside of the one table.
  • Note the change I made at that list to add |caption={{sronly|<caption_text>}} into the table header template call- captions are needed in tables to allow screen reader software to jump to named tables; the {{sronly}} template makes it so that the text doesn't show up for visual browsers if it duplicates a nearby header.
  • Note also the change I made at that list to the "by country" and "by rocket" tables at the bottom- there I added captions, colscopes, and rowscopes (which combined let screen reader software parse tables correctly/more easily), and that should be copied here. --PresN 21:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Can you do January so I have an example? I can then do all the other months, not just on this page but others in the series. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neopeius: Done. --PresN 22:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I think I made the table fixes correctly, to the launch lists and the summary at the bottom. :) --Neopeius (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One issue, which I fixed. --PresN 15:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Per MOS:FLAG, "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details". None of the flags are ever accompanied by a country name, and (on my screen at least) what I eventually figured was the Soviet flag just looks like a red rectangle, not recognisable as a flag
I'd appreciate some guidance on this. It was a non-issue in Spaceflight before 1951 because all three countries with flags were named in the infobox under "firsts" -- I can't see an elegant place to put country names (unless you're fine with me just squeezing them into the first table appearance)
Could you stick a key at the top? Like this?
Key
 Nazi Germany
 USA
 Soviet Union
That would work, I would have thought..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not bad! Where specifically would you put it? --Neopeius (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just under the "launches" heading, I reckon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --Neopeius (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop
fixed.
  • "11 total were launched during the year" - I have always been told not to start a sentence with a number written in digit form
fixed with a semicolon.
  • "Launched 7 August" - as a speaker of UK English I would say "Launched on 7 August", but I believe this usage might be OK in US English, can you confirm?
It's goed Ingelsk to me...
  • "six R-1s specifically designed equipped" => "six R-1s specifically designed and equipped"
Fixed.
  • "had been eclipsed since World War 2" => "had been eclipsed since World War II"
Fixed
  • Pipe SCORE (satellite) to hide the disambiguator
Fixed
  • "a process that was completed November 1953" - regardless of my comment above, this surely needs to be "a process that was completed in November 1953".......?
Not really, for the same reason. That's pretty standard usage here, in news, newspapers, etc.
  • Write Launch service provider in full in the column header
I am hestitant to change the table headers used for the complete series of article. I wonder if it was originally abbreviated for space concerns (this would make it the longest label)
  • Ionospheric, Solar, Aeronomy - don't think words other than the first need capital letters
You Are Probably Right.
  • "Apogee: 100 kilometres (62 mi) Dogs Dezik and Zhegan were carried in space and were recovered" - there seems to a need for a comma or full stop after the bracket
Or a semi-colon for consistency!
  • Legend for the pie chart says USA 24 but the table says 25
PresN's fault. :) Fixed.
  • Refs 2, 6, 8, 16, 17 list no work/publisher
Fixed.
Comments from Balon Greyjoy
  • "The U.S. Navy fired its powerful Viking sounding" I would replace "fired" with "launched" or "flew" as that seems like a more spaceflight-esque term (I understand it's ambiguous, as weaponized rockets and spaceflight rockets are similar, and sometimes the same). Also, I would remove "powerful" as that seems to already be established by its world-record flight, and "powerful" is a relative term based upon the era of spaceflight.
fixed
  • I think the subsection "American" should be "United States" or "USA" to be in line with the rest of the article.
  • I would similarly change "Soviet" to "Soviet Union"
fixed
  • "By 1950, the ballistic war-head carrying missile," I think this should be clear that this is development of the ballistic missile
fixed

More comments later, but the list looks in good shape! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Sorry I missed your comments! --Neopeius (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Support Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Model for other timelines[edit]

Pretty impressive and I will be using it as a framework for my revamp of 1968 in spaceflight. Thanks for all the hard work.--Akrasia25 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • Seems odd to link Soviet Union when you don't link United States.
When I've linked both, I've been told that the U.S. is common knowledge whereas the USSR, no longer being extant, should be linked.
  • "the World Air Sports Federation" does anyone refer to the FAI that way? Or is this contemporaneous?
The source refers to it as "the World Air Sports Federation", and the same language appears in the FLC, Spaceflight before 1951
  • "As well, development" reads awkwardly. Do you need "As well,"? Could you not just say "Development also..."?
Fixed.
  • "the U.S. Air Force the U.S. Army initiated" missing a word.
fixed
  • "The Army, Air Force, and the..." you linked these in the lead, so you can/should relink them in the main body of the article.
fixed
  • "sounding rockets" likewise.
fixed
  • What is aeronomy?
Wikilinked
  • "11 total were" a total of 11 were
fixed.
  • "effects. [3]" no space before refs.
fixed.
  • "U.S. Navy built" -> "U.S. Navy-built"
fixed.
  • "The first generation of U.S. Navy built Viking sounding" uses the word Viking three times in one sentence...
I think it's justified in that sentence, especially since one is a mission name.
  • "domestically built" hyphenate.
hypens not used after adjectives.
  • "in November 1950. In January 1951" repetitive.
Disagree.
  • "November 1951, [8]" no space before ref.
Fixed.
  • "ICBM" explain that before using the initialism.
Fixed.
  • "Wehrner von Braun" it's Wehrner.
You mean "Wernher" :) Fixed.
  • "propellants, JATOs, and" what are JATOs? Suggest a footnote.
It's wikilinked. Does it really need further explanation?
  • "Redstone missile" put missile in the pipe so it's not confused with the location of Redstone.
Good idea.
  • "the NRL team" rugby league team??
Fixed.
  • "the Aerobee rocket, joined" overlinked,
Fixed.
  • Link cosmic ray.
Fixed.
  • "the Russian-designed" shouldn't that be Soviet-designed?
Fixed.
  • " 1953)[5]:69–70" full stop missing.
Fixed.
  • "3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) range" should use adj=on
I'm not familiar with that one. Could you format the entire string for my reference? Thank you.

That takes me to Launches. Plenty of work to do here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! All changes made or addressed. @The Rambling Man: --Neopeius (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, @The Rambling Man:!
  • "LSP" shouldn't be using initialisms before they are explained, even if they are linked.
This is fundamental to the template. I am hesitant to make changes that will affect all of the other timeline articles. I also don't actually know how to do it.
  • Where things like "flight number" don't exist, don't just use a blank cell, put a centred en-dash or something in there, or even {{n/a}}.
Current convention appears to be blank cells. That usage was FL-approved for Spaceflight before 1951
I would be grateful for suggested implementations.
  • Ref 11 and 12 should use unspaced en-dash, not spaced hyphen.
Titles taken directly from the articles. Literal cut and pastes.
  • Ref 15 should use en-dash in year range.
Again..
  • "1950s in transport" why?
This seems to be an artifact that predates my involvement. The Spaceflight before 1951 is also a member of the category, but none of the other timeline articles. I have deleted the category for both (but added the Category:Timeline_of_spaceflight_working_group_articles to 1951).

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! --Neopeius (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man:, @Balon Greyjoy:, @Gog the Mild:, @Hawkeye7:, @ChrisTheDude:, @PresN: What do you think? --Neopeius (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Grapple X
  • As above, captions for the tables would be preferred. Given that you have a heading for each month, I would suggest removing those as heading levels and inserting them as table captions instead, they'll display a little smaller and centred as a result but should give a screen reader an anchor for each one, you can then use the {{anchor}} template to continue the horizontal TOC's functionality.
I am reluctant to change the style that was hashed out for Spaceflight before 1951 article, which got its style during the FLC process (it is currently the only Timeline FLC and serves as a model).
I hadn't actually looked at the page code for this and it seems this is a moot point; buried in the templating for the tables is a caption field detectable by screen-readers and not displayed visibly, so this is actually not a problem. Just make sure if you're continuing a series of these that fields like |caption={{sronly|January launches}} are retained in future, that achieves what I was asking for here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup -- I am going through the articles one by one and fixing them. I've done through 1954. Ibemichael is cleaning up the launch lists nicely.
  • I know they're copied from the sources but we're still okay to switch the hyphens in ref titles for dashes and this should be done, we don't need to mimic another venue's formatting verbatim.
Is there guidance for switching punctuation? Do we just like the way emdashes look on WP?
It's mostly about internal consistency; we would also, for example, change a block-capital article title to title casing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks.
  • The draft plan for the ambitious 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) range R-3—compare this to the lead's 100-kilometre (62 mi) boundary of space, this former usage shouldn't show in plural (ie it should be "3,000 kilometre (1,900 mi) range"). If you add |adj=on to the convert template it should display correctly. Check for consistent use of this throughout; when a distance is being used as an adjective you want to make sure the unit isn't in the plural.
Ah, that's what the |adj=on notation does. :) Now can you tell me how to force American spelling on it? :)
Sure, if you add |sp=us to the template it'll spell it the wrong way for you. :) 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did there. It's just a matter of article consistency. :) Is there a way to force American spelling throughout the article? There are a lot of kms...
  • Not sure why the lead links the Soviet Union and not the United States, I know one is extant and the other isn't but this looks inconsistent at first blush. If you want to skip linking the US, you could delink the USSR too as both are linked to elsewhere anyway. Either way works.
This gets brought up in every article I do. If I link United States, it's unlinked as pedantic. If I leave it unlinked, I'm told it needs to be linked. :) The weight seems heavier on the unlinking, so that's the policy I've followed, and that's how it is in the FLC Spaceflight before 1951, which I'm using as my guide.
Hmm. Not a big issue but having two similar terms side by side and treated differently does feel a little odd. I'll defer to previous usage on this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • that brief (~15 minutes) exposure—this feels very informal, I would use a tilde for "approximately" in shorthand but I'm not familiar with it being used in formal settings, can we spell this out with a word instead (roughly, approximately, etc)?
Fixed, thank you.
  • Introduction of acronyms seems inconsistent but I'm not familiar with aeronautical conventions here; we have for example free rockets, solid propellants, JATOs, and related items with JATO explained only as a pipe link, but also the United States Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) team where the acronym is spelt out at first use. I believe the latter is preferable but let me know if this is common usage in the field.
Clarified.
  • A very minor quibble but when it comes to image use, we have two tall images displaying essentially on top of each other, and in some displays the second one runs into the following heading, there is then just plain text for a while before the tables begin. Is there a relevant image that might fit in the "Spacecraft development" heading which we could use instead of the R-1 diagram? This is entirely an optional aside though.
I see your point. Is it any better on the left? I couldn't find great illustrations for this article -- the R-1 diagram seemed the most appropriate and reflective of the era.
It's a fine image, it's just a little awkward to place--the problem with rockets, I suppose, is that they're so thin and long that they demand a certain image ratio. I think it looks better at present; there's some mild sandwiching but I don't think it's a tremendous problem (and wouldn't be an issue on mobile devices). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • versions of which ultimately launched America's first artificial satellite, in 1958, and America's first astronaut, in 1961. This appears to be uncited, but also I don't see the value in egg links for these either; suggest naming Shepard and Explorer-1 in text, and appending a citation to this.
Fixed.
@Grapple X: Thanks for your attention! I am out of position this weekend, but I will address your issues next week when I am back in town. :)
@Grapple X: Sorry for the pushback on some of the items. Your points are all well taken, but many address issues that have been wrangled and resolved in previous articles. --Neopeius (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy enough at this point to support; not collapsing the above just yet as there are a few points given in reply but I'm happy with the article at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X: Addressed all issues -- one question re: global Yankification of spelling... --Neopeius (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a matter of adding that extra field to every use of the convert template, but a find-and-replace for "{{convert|" to "{{convert|sp=us|" should do it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X: Ugh. I think I'll just leave it even though the top of the page says "AMERICAN ENGLISH!" :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed for you now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/1951_in_spaceflight/archive1&oldid=1051515113"