Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/GA1
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll take this on in the next few days. Jamesx12345 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Intro seems a bit verbose. Perhaps another picture of the Grasshopper - to illustrate the concept of a rocket landing - would help?
- Re: Grasshopper photo: I very much agree. Have been endeavoring to find a Wiki-licensable photo of Grasshopper flying for 18 months now. See extensive discussion on Talk page. User:Huntster, who is both very wiki-photo knowledgeable and an Admin on the English Wikipedia tells us that there simply are not any wiki-allowable images that anyone has yet found of Grasshopper in flight. (although there are lots of good Youtube videos released by the company). I've wondered whether perhaps a fair use criteria might work, but editors strong in wiki-photo fu have told me no dice. N2e (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Re: tightening up the prose: The article just went through a WP:GOCE. But one idea I had is that we could delete the following sentence from the second paragraph, as it is only summarizing details presented in the article: "Eight low-altitude flight tests were made in 2012 and 2013. The first booster return controlled-descent test from high-altitude was made in September 2013, and a second test is planned for March 2014.[2][3]" Would you think that would help? N2e (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think so. Schedules seem like the kind of info best kept for the main body of the article.
Done — N2e (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think so. Schedules seem like the kind of info best kept for the main body of the article.
- Re: tightening up the prose: The article just went through a WP:GOCE. But one idea I had is that we could delete the following sentence from the second paragraph, as it is only summarizing details presented in the article: "Eight low-altitude flight tests were made in 2012 and 2013. The first booster return controlled-descent test from high-altitude was made in September 2013, and a second test is planned for March 2014.[2][3]" Would you think that would help? N2e (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- "occur at a velocity of approximately" - km/s would be adequate here, I think.
- I would tend to agree, but what is there is a result of somewhat involved Talk page consensus; moreover, the original source only gives the velocities in Mach numbers, which are approximate, and so we felt we ought to leave those Mach nos. in the encyclopedia prose. And generally, in spaceflight related articles, we give velocities in both SI units and in English measurment units for a global audience. Do you think the GA criteria would trump the Talk page consensus? I would be happy to revisit the topic with the previous discussants. N2e (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- If there is a local consensus to have it one way, I see no problem with that. Jamesx12345 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree, but what is there is a result of somewhat involved Talk page consensus; moreover, the original source only gives the velocities in Mach numbers, which are approximate, and so we felt we ought to leave those Mach nos. in the encyclopedia prose. And generally, in spaceflight related articles, we give velocities in both SI units and in English measurment units for a global audience. Do you think the GA criteria would trump the Talk page consensus? I would be happy to revisit the topic with the previous discussants. N2e (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- "It said this was an approximation." - this single sentence looks a bit odd. It also makes the use of refs 6 and 7 a bit unclear.
Fixed — N2e (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've tagged 4 dead links using Checklinks. There's also a [citation needed] needing fixed, but that might be covered by ref 46.
- "first stage is now being flight tested" - very liable to dating. Given that you and some other editors have focused on this article for a fair length of time, it should be OK, but an {{As of}} or {{Update after}} could be used.
- Fixed — N2e (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- "News of the new test rocket" - "News of the test rocket"
- "re-entry database" - not sure what this is. From the context, it seems to be data that will allow a computer to work out where it will land, but I could be quite far off the mark.
- NASA can be linked in the first instance.
- "reusable rocket system that will be powered by LOX/methane, "an evolution of SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster", and reiterated SpaceX's commitment to develop a vertical landing breakthrough technology." - "reusable rocket system to be powered by LOX/methane, "an evolution of SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster", and reiterated SpaceX's commitment to develop a vertical landing technology." - update tense, rm "breakthrough" - don't think it's needed.
- "24-story" - this needs a source, preferably for the height in metres. In terms of buildings, the spelling should be storey.
- "SpaceX made history in September 2013 when it relit" - "In September 2013, SpaceX successfully for the first time relit" - seems a bit promotional. My wording isn't great, it's just the "made history" that doesn't feel quite right.
- "for March 2014 at the earliest." - another ref needed. I'll stop referring to refs by number since they might change unpredictably as you add or move them.
- Transonic can be linked.
