Talk:Space Shuttle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Is the format of the See also section withing MOS here?
• Why is the insignia down in external links (ditto for the commons cat box that's usually in See also)

  Removed the insignia (I think it belongs on the Space Shuttle program page) and moved the commons cat box. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Images all but one are PD, that other one appropriately licensed on commons.
• Infobox seems good
• All images seem to be used appropriately
• I believe Kees did a source review? I'll defer to those comments - also, those unaddressed comments, I agree with. Some of them I don't feel need to happen before this can reach GA, but obviously would be ideal to have them

Lead

• Good length for article
• In addition to the prototype whose completion was cancelled - do we use 'whose' for an inanimate object? (Actual question, MOS may dictate)

  Reworded it. Decided to take out the part about the Enterprise prototype entirely. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good overview, with appropriate wikilinks

Historical background

• Made one minor tense change, so that the aerospaceplane part doesn't sound awkward writing semi-achronologically, but this part is good.

Design process

• Isn't the Space Shuttle design process page really the main article - it could use a main template?

  Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe expand on stage-and-a-half staging

  Done. Not the biggest fan of how it reads. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Air Force expected to launch large satellites into a polar orbit, and that the Space Shuttle have a 4.6-meter (15 ft) by 18-meter (60 ft) foot payload bay, 1,800-kilometer (1,100 mi) cross-range, and the capacity to lift 29,000-kilogram (65,000 lb) to an easterly low Earth orbit, and 18,000-kilogram (40,000 lb) into polar orbit runs on a bit, and grammar might need some tweaks

  Broken into multiple sentences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Development

Kingsif (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps some explanation on what the Main Propulsion Test Article and Structural Test Article are, in broad terms - though it reads alright and context clues mean it's alright

  I added some explanation; let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• (Oh, happy what-would-have-been 45th birthday to Columbia)
• I am a bit stuck on what Rockwell began converting STA-099 to OV-099 means though - converting it to fit or just remodeling the STA into an orbital vehicle?

  I am inclined to go to converting, as that sounds like a more extensive overhaul than reverting. Changing an STA to an OV involved a lot of change, so I want to highlight that with using "converting," but that's just my opinion. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Testing

• seems good

Description

• intro good

Orbiter

• The first paragraph could have refs spread throughout a bit more, but equally it is a whole chunk of information that will probably be read all together in the sources, so not important to do.
• The second paragraph seems like it belongs with the last paragraph of the Development section? Not sure how this information is best spread.

  It has a lot of duplicate info. I removed it from the Orbiter section and will leave what's in the Development section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Crew compartment

• Not sure if this is the place for the crew suit info, but not sure where else it would go.

  I remember having the same thought, but am not sure where else it would belong. I know it's not part of the shuttle, per se, but I think it's still an important component to mention. I think it's most appropriate here. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Flight systems

• looks good Kingsif (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Payload bay

• also good, though there might be some duplicate wikilinks

Remote manipulator...

• EVA is a dup wikilink - I think Kees mentioned adding the script to check these, which I recommend, too
  • This should also only be referred to by its acronym, as this has already been established in the article
• "six-degrees" shouldn't be hyphenated

  Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• How did the RMS' strength increase so much? This is probably answered at the main article, but it's my big question from this section so it would be nice to include it here

  I'm not seeing anything in the source material. The 2016 Jenkins book "Changes implemented in 1998 raised this to 586,000 pounds." I couldn't find any additional sources that explain what those changes were. I'm inclined to leave it, but I understand that it seems anomalous as that's a 9-times increase. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Spacelab

• looks good :)

RS-25

• This isn't the first use of the verb gimbal, but it's the first wikilink - either move wikilink up or ditch it
  • For that respect, do pitch and yaw need links?

  I moved the gimbal link and added pitch/yaw wikilinks. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is the last part of the sentence The RS-25 is a staged-combustion cycle cryogenic engine that used liquid oxygen and hydrogen that had a higher chamber pressure than any previous liquid rocket referring to the engine or to the hydrogen used? Currently, it's the hydrogen, but that doesn't seem right - recommend changing the last 'that' to ', and' if it's about the engine's pressure

  Think I fixed it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• kilopascals and psi could use links, too

  Any idea how to link the units in the convert template? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  Think I got it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• The tense changes mid-sentence in The nozzle is cooled by 1,080 interior lines carrying liquid hydrogen, and were additionally protected by insulative and ablative material

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• dup link for Rocketdyne?

  Removed Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

OMS

• highly technical paragraph that still makes sense. Seems fine, but maybe a bit bare on what it actually is, behind all the science of how it works

  I struggled with this paragraph. I figured the OMS is important enough for its own section, but I feel like there's not much to say about it (according to the sources that I'm using) to add further descriptions about it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

TPS

• also good

External tank

• Could spread the refs of paragraph 2 throughout, rather than three at the end, if appropriate
• Dup link for STS-2

  Maybe I'm missing it (or forgot I fixed it it) but I'm not seeing a second link for STS-2? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• The third paragraph could more specifically say that removing the latex (as Kees asked - does this need caps?) made the tank lighter, and so the shuttle could carry more, since this is mentioned at the top of the article
• does center of gravity really need a link?

  Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

SRBs

• Should Thiokol have a link

  Linked earlier under "Design process." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• STS-6 and STS-7 used that were 2,300 kg (5,000 lb) lighter - presumably they used SRBs?

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifications

• looks fine, though I wonder about the use of refs: are all of the extra ones through the list needed, aren't these covered in the main ref at the top of the section?

Mission profile

• Kingsif (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Launch prep

• I don't think the (KSC) is needed; is the Kennedy Space Center ever called this, in general and in this article?

  It is often referred to by that acronym outside of Wikipedia. Kees08 (Talk) 18:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's often used. I replaced instances of it with its acronym. The only exception is that I left it fully spelled out in the first use of the KSC Vistor Center complex to avoid any ambiguity. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Could use some clarity at The SRBs were assembled from the sections they arrived in - most things are assembled from the parts available, this seems redundant unless there's some detail that's not apparent?

  I reworded it to say they were assembled and then attached. I go over the different sections in the SRBs in their description sub-section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think I'd prefer an image of the crawler-transporters or the VAB (one that shows how massive they are) in this part? But that's me

  Changed the photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Should the 'was' in launch conditions required that the weather conditions was acceptable be 'were', or not?

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Launch

• The T minus notation here uses en-dashes, whereas above they use hyphens. I don't know which is correct (if either), but it should be standardized through the article

  Changed to en-dash throughout! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Shouldn't At T-0, the Johnson Space Center's (JSC) Mission Control Center assumed control of the flight from the LCC be moved a few sentences up, for chronological order?

  This is something I debated, but I decided to leave as is to keep the sentences about the SSME start up and the launch control separate. It is slightly out of chronological order, but I think it makes more sense than having a sentence about engine start up, having a sentence about who is now in control of the mission, and then another sentence about the SSMEs. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• 20-30 seconds and 65-72% should probably use an en-dash, too; I think that's what has been done above

  Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Does Johnson Space Center need the (JSC), either?

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• What is the unit NM? (wikilink?)

  Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In orbit

• good

re-entry and landing & landing sites

• Kennedy Space Center doesn't need the link here

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Does Edwards Air Force Base need a wikilink?

  No. Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Post landing

• Edwards, shuttle carrier aircraft, and Shuttle landing facility don't need links here

  Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Disasters

• Perhaps add the mission names (STS-51-L and STS-107) in the prose?

  Worked it in! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's always interesting to see bureaucracy kill astronauts...

  STS-107 won't be the last time, unfortunately. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Retirement

• I think low Earth orbit already has a link above, too

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• This part does use KSC for Kennedy, but it's the only instance, so I still don't see the use

  Made changes throughout the article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Distribution of ...

• Space Shuttle program should have a wikilink, this is its first appearance in the body

  Moved from later in the section! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• This and the next sub-section (Orbiters on display) seem like they should be combined, I'm not sure how would be best. Current structure probably fine

Orbiters on display

• The bullet on Endeavor is a long run-on that's hard to follow

  Improved (I think!) Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Rockwell, Space Shuttle program, shuttle carrier aircraft, steel, wood, NASA - don't need wikilinks here

  Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• (please use the script tool to see if there's other dup wikilinks)

  I think I've got it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hardware on display

• JSC used here, but not before, similar to the Kennedy question - is this really worth using?

  Made changes throughout the article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In popular culture

• looks good

Kingsif (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Kees08 comments

Here are the Kees08's unaddressed comments from Talk:Space Shuttle. I'm copying them here so that I can address all feedback on the same page. I'll plan on categorizing/organizing them.

• Some citations have the author as (last, first) and others (first last). Should be consistent.

  I think all now read (last, first). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Integrate the webarchive links into cite web; if you leave them as webarchive then the formatting between those and cite web are different.

  Fixed the two occurrences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• CollectSpace.com. is formatted differently through the citations. I prefer website=collectSPACE but to each their own as long as it is consistent. Check that you have consistency among website/publisher parameters for all

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Should have consistent formatting and an accessdate on the date you verified the material "NASA—Sound Suppression System"

  Could you clarify? I think I fixed the access-date issue, but I'm not sure what formatting issue you are talking about. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah I was not clear. NASA, nasa.gov, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration are all used to cite from NASA. I prefer NASA but you can choose whatever you like so long as it is consistent. (I have this point later, can't remember why I duplicated this) Kees08 (Talk) 18:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm replacing everything with "NASA." However, one thing I'm not sure about is if I should be linking "NASA" in every unique reference (since there are a lot that have NASA as the publisher). I couldn't find any guidance at WP:Citing Sources. For the time being, I'll Wikilink NASA. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is a citation in the task list on this page that you can add into the article

  Which citation? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  On the talk page there is a to-do list near the top which contains one item. Your call on if it needs done or not, but I usually try to get those completed or confirm they don't need completed around GA time. They are easy to miss! Kees08 (Talk) 18:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm electing to remove this from the to-do list without addressing it. It made more sense when the retirement section focused on the political decision making behind the orbiter locations. But since the focus of this article is more about the hardware itself, I think that is more fitting on a page about the Space Shuttle retirement. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Can you spread this through the paragraph? [14]:64–68, 100, 124[23]:365, 382–389, 408–411

  Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Spread this through the paragraph too, it is harder to verify when it is a big range at the end of a paragraph. I will just make that a general note and have you find the rest, for WP:V, whatever can be done to make it easier (like keeping page ranges down, more than one citation in a paragraph) are helpful [23]:412[27]:II–177–183

  @Kees08: Almost done with this; it's been a real lesson in not being lazy the first time around! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think (famous last words) I'm done with this! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Fuel pods or propellant tanks? and the associated fuel pods

  Fuel pods were the source terminology. "Propellanet tanks" sounds more technical, but my gut feeling is to keep it in line with what the source says. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  I looked into it more and understand it better. The pods are the whole thing (like in this image). I think it is generally referred to as 'OMS pod'. The source we use for this article refers to them as the OMS pod or OMS/RCS pods. The description it gives for the contents are Each pod contains one OMS engine and the hardware needed to pressurize, store and distribute the propellants to perform the velocity maneuvers.

  Based on that, I would maybe rephrase The Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) pods consisted of two aft-mounted AJ10-190 engines and the associated fuel pods. to The aft-mounted Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) consisted of two AJ10-190 engines, the hardware required to deliver propellant to the engines, and the propellant needed for maneuvering.

  I am pretty indifferent on how it is rephrased, but I think the current phrasing is wrong since the engines are part of the pod, and they are not really 'fuel pods', they are OMS or OMS/RCS pods. There are a few good options for images to include, and I think it would be helpful to illustrate to the reader that the pods are the big detachable bits on the ass-end of the shuttle. Maybe File:OMS maneuvering engines.jpg, though I like the image I linked earlier that shows it detached so you can see real hardware and where it is attached. See Commons:Category:Space_Shuttle_Orbital_Maneuvering_System for more options. You do not have to include an image, completely optional. Choosing images for this article that best illustrate the Space Shuttle in an encyclopedic way is going to be very difficult, especially since there are so many good 'eye candy' images to choose from that are less encyclopedic. Kees08 (Talk) 17:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  I just replaced "fuel pods" with "propellant tanks." Your version is more descriptive, but I think it's clear that the propellant tanks deliver propellant to the OMS engines so we don't need to mention the hardware that delivered it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Capitalized as Space Shuttle main engines on the target page, and I recall a discussion, I think on WP:Spaceflight, who confirmed that style the Space Shuttle Main Engines

  On that note, is the general consensus to us RS-25 or SSME?

  As an update to my previous comment, my vote is SSME. Yes, the RS-25 is the technical name (and more relevant with the Space Launch System), but it seems like the preferred terminology during the shuttle-era was SSME. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have never used metric units for engine pressure, but I always imagined metric designers use MPa. Do you know if kPa or MPa is preferred? of 22,650 kilopascals (3,285 psi)

  I'll defer to your plan on this one, as you are an aerospace engineer and I am a guy who plays 1970s video games on a plane! While I do want to use metric whenever its an option, I also want to use the industry standard for units (the notable example is using feet when describing altitude, as that is an aviation standard). I'm guessing that PSI is the unit I should be using; I was simply converting to metric because I assumed it was the relevant unit. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  A real quick look online shows bar as the metric unit of choice. I am convinced that people have something against commas in numbers and in scientific notation, so they will use whatever unit gets rid of them. I might double check a rocket prop book later, but it sounds familiar. Kees08 (Talk) 15:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• You talk about the Block 2 before you define it as an upgrade RS-25 upgrade versions were denoted as Block I and Block II.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Does any of this need capitalized? of white Fire-Retardant Latex to provide

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a short story of why they thought it was necessary and later thought it was not that can be included? but was determined to be unnecessary and removed, increasing the overall payload capacity.

  I am under the impression that it was an aesthetic choice, but I'll try to find a source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Update: I was wrong! I added some additional info. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reads weird to me (also do we/should we define SSME at some point?) The significant weight reduction of the external tank caused a shift in the center of gravity, which would have resulted in throttling down of the Space Shuttle Main Engines in an abort to orbit scenario.

  Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see this is sourced, but weren't the abort towers solid propellant? They were the largest solid rocket motors ever flown, and the first solid rocket motors used on a crewed spacecraft.

  It's semantics, but I think of it as the first solid rocket motor that was part of the ascent, not the emergency option. But I also think it's a subjective metric; so I took it out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think ET is defined in the previous section support for the orbiter vehicle and ET,

  It is now! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• In general run through and make sure all acronyms are defined at some point

  Think I'm good, but my glasses haven't been replaced in a few years, so feel free to point out my errors! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• The 'highlight duplicate links' tool comes up with hella results and you should install this into your javascript, then fix the offending instances
  • importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // User:Ucucha/duplinks

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't read the whole article yet but at a glance I don't see a sort of..legacy maybe is the right word?..section. One that talks about if it was a good idea or not, why it didn't work out as originally designed, etc. Unless there is some article that goes in..seems appropriate enough for here.
  • I guess Criticism of the Space Shuttle program is the right article, and I suppose it staying in the Space Shuttle program article is appropriate. Probably no need to do anything here.
    • I agree. While there is obviously going to be so overlap with this article and others pertaining to the Space Shuttle, my goal was to focus as much as possible on the hardware itself, not the program as a whole. I think it could be a never-ending improvement project to continue delving into the different aspects of the shuttle. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• You have nasa.gov, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, sometimes wikilinked. Should be consistent on linking and on the name

  Fixed and wikilinked Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Two different ways of citing KSC, Pao.ksc.nasa.gov, NASA Kennedy Space Center should be consistent

  Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Any better source for this?

  Mischief managed; I took out the ref and the info it referenced. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• needs en dashes, and an isbn. Icon - 1972-2013.

  Added both!

• Looks like Space.com to me Howell, Elizabeth (December 11, 2017). "Endeavour: NASA's Youngest Shuttle". NASA.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• PDF "Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Chapter III: The Accident". NASA. June 6, 1986. Retrieved March 14, 2020. and "Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Chapter VI: An Accident Rooted in History". Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. June 6, 1986. Retrieved March 16, 2020.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Consistent ISBN hyphenation, I use the hyphenator ISBN 9780894640018.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Weird formatting on this citation: Book Review: Final Countdown: NASA and the End of the Space Shuttle Program by Pat Duggins, American Scientist, 2008, Vol. 96, No. 5, p. 32.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Any better source than Channel 13 news? "NASA offers space shuttle tiles to school and universities". Channel 13 News.

  Got a better source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Any better source than a student newspaper? Gilpin, Eva (September 8, 2014). "Funds shortage has NASA simulator collecting dust". The Battalion. Texas A&M University.

  Reworded the sentence and used a Space.com ref Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Publisher Gainesville Sun, website Gainesville.com: Winston, Hannah. "A piece of NASA history lands at Keystone Heights museum". gainesville.com. The Gainesville Sun. Retrieved March 16, 2019.

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• For the infobox, verify that anything that has a citation in the prose does not have a citation in the infobox (unless for some reason it is contentious). Also, more importantly, make sure that all information that is not cited in the prose has a citation in the infobox (I did not check, but just in case you did not either :) )

  I think it's good. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not a good source for that information, can delete: Schweiger, Martin (2010). "Orbiter Manual" (PDF). Retrieved March 13, 2020.

  It's the best source I could find for the Orbiter game/sim. I wouldn't be using this source for technical details of the shuttle, but I think it's a reasonable enough source to show that the shuttle is feature in this game. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  This is a better source as it is a non-primary source, and should be good enough to establish notability for inclusion. Kees08 (Talk) 17:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like infobox rocket accepts a logo parameter, which is where the Shuttle program insignia could go. Or delete it, not sure, I see the Space Shuttle program article has the insignia loud and proud

  I want to leave the logo out, as that seems more like a program thing, not the shuttle itself. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I asked a question related to correcting a parameter used in the infobox here, so you know. Template_talk:Infobox_rocket#Infobox_rocket/stage_..._fuel?_or_propellant?. Kees08 (Talk) 06:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  It seems like the consensus is for "propellant." I looked through the template page and added in "|boosterfuel=" thinking that would result in propellant, but it just took off the Fuel section when the page rendered. Any idea on what to do? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall

FYI I have been posting comments on the article talk page, which you can use in the GA review if you want, or not. Just been giving some informal feedback to get the article improved. I'll hold off giving any additional until your review is complete. Kees08 (Talk) 03:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Kees, any input welcome Kingsif (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: All my comments are above, if there's any area you think my comments haven't covered, please ask. Kingsif (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Perfect! Time to get working on these! Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: I see a lot of work has been done, where are we at with the comments? Kingsif (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Barring any forgetfulness on my part (not unheard of!), the comments should be caught up with the edits I've made. I'll definitely need some more time for the edits, but I'm hoping to get it wrapped up this weekend. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Overpromised and underdelivered! Sorry about that; weekend got a lot more hectic than anticipated. Still working on this article after a few days away! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I think I have finished all of your suggested edits. The ones I haven't attacked yet are the ones that marry up with Kees08's comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Hi! Sorry to be that guy, but I have become significantly busier since the COVID-19 cases have risen in Japan. I still have every intention of working on this article when I can, but the going will probably be a little slower than I originally hoped. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif and Kees08: I think I have addressed all comments. Please let me know if there is anything else you want me to work on. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'll wait on any comments from Kees. Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: Any additional feedback? Thanks so much for your help! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Any update on this? I'm not seeing any additional feedback from Kees08. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: I'm happy to pass it. Kingsif (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for the review! Sorry that it ended up taking so much longer than I originally forecasted! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)