Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Shuttle/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2020 [1].

Space Shuttle edit

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the NASA Space Shuttle, specifically the system itself and not the program or a particular mission. I figured this iconic spacecraft was worth improving an article over. I recently got it to Good Article status and would like to continue its improvement! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D edit

As a bit of a drive-by comment, I'm surprised to see that this article doesn't appear to discuss the cost-effectiveness of the Space Shuttles. As I understand it, while the main rationale for the program was that reusable space shuttles would be cheaper than single-use spacecraft this turned out to not be the case in practice for a wide range of reasons. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion on the costs/cost-effectiveness are more appropriate for the Space Shuttle program and Criticism of the Space Shuttle program. While it is certainly an important part of the discussion about the decision to use the Space Shuttle, this article's focus is primarily on the Space Shuttle itself and not the missions/program/pros and cons. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the often-made argument that the design didn't meet its goals deserves some space in the article. It helps to explain why the Space Shuttle is being replaced with a concept similar to that which it itself replaced, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see it as most appropriate to put this in the page? I'm not trying to come across as if I'm disregarding your critique, but I feel like this article largely stays away from the criticisms and defenses of the Space Shuttle, so there's not a logical place to put it without an adding a long section discussing the cost-benefits of the shuttle. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the problem with that? FA level articles on aircraft and ship types, for instance, discuss whether the design met its goals (or similar) as this is typically a topic the sources have a focus on. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! I'll take a look at some examples and work it in! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I put this in under the "Criticism" sub-section, specifically focusing on its lack of cost-effectiveness and spotty safety record. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I think I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if you have any more feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt edit

  • I might say something in the lede about the external tiles, and how damage to them made the shuttle vulnerable.
  • I added in the tiles to the lead section, but it seems inconsistent to mention that they are a potential weakness of the shuttle, as there's no similar mention about how SRB damage would harm the vehicle/crew. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning in the early 1950s, NASA and the Air Force" NASA did not exist in the early 1950s.
  • "The program tested aerodynamic characteristics that would later be applied to the Space Shuttle, " I don't think you can apply characteristics. I'd change one word or the other.
  • I updated this to say that the characteristics were incorporated. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the Space Task Group and the Space Shuttle Task Group different things? I might then find means to distinguish them, such as the use of abbreviations.
  • I'm not thrilled about using an entire book as a source, without page numbers, as you do several times.
  • Are you talking about the specifications section that references the Jenkins book as a whole? I've begun referencing individual pages, but just to make sure I understand, you are looking for a page reference for every specification? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that where a source with page numbers is used, page numbers should be used. There was a recent discussion of this at WT:FAC FYI.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of the decision to have a shuttle makes it sound rather inevitable, which I'm not certain it was.
  • Can you point me to where you think it sounds inevitable? I'm reading it over and my take is that it comes across like a study was conducted that concluded a reusable system was ideal. But it's hard to view your own writing critically, so please let me know what you want me to consider. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I was unclear. I understand that the Shuttle itself wasn't an inevitable decision, and I don't feel like the article presents it as such. Could you point me to where it comes across like that? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentions of the repeated delays in the shuttle, that resulted in NASA going almost six years between spaceflights, would be good.
  • I think I adequately address the delays in the development of Columbia and the RS-25; what else are you looking to be brought up? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shuttle was originally supposed to fly in 1977, it flew in 1981.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The orbiter used retractable landing gear with a nose landing gear and two main landing gear, " should one or more of the "gear" be "gears"?
  • "The crew compartment comprised three decks, and was the pressurized, habitable area on all Space Shuttle missions. The cockpit consisted of two seats for the commander and pilot, as well as an additional two to four seats for crew members. The mid-deck is located below the cockpit, and is where the galley and crew bunks were set up, as well as three or four crew member seats." Is there a reason why you mix past and present tense?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mid-deck was located underneath the flight deck" We know. You already told us three paragraphs before. Suggest omit, similar get rid of the repetition of the fact that the cockpit had 2-4 additional seats for crew members.
  • You are not consistent "S band" vs. "S-band".
  • "Although the orbiter could not be flown without a crew," Is this entirely correct? I thought I read in the "would a rescue have been possible" of the Columbia disaster report that if the crew had been taken on board another shuttle, that Columbia could have been deorbited (to destruction) under Houston's control.
  • Reworded. I can't speak for the Columbia disaster, but the autonomous landing of the orbiter was possible, but never tested or proven. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would mention the tiles in "Thermal Protection System" might higher, in the first sentence preferably.
  • That's it for the moment, but glancing ahead, I don't see any mention of the fact that the Shuttle never had the Air Force participation that was expected (and that this and other reasons left the Shuttle short on customers), that it never flew the number of missions that NASA had expected (and told Congress) and that every few years, a shuttle had to go back to California for lengthy refurbishment.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on adding in the refurbishment info, but I would like to leave out the commentary on the program's success to other pages (such as Space Shuttle program and Criticism of the Space Shuttle program). I think there's going to be some overlap between these pages, but my thoughts for this page are its primarily about the Space Shuttle itself and not the program. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't insist on it but I think you could say a few words at the start of the "Retirement" section without too much of a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Shuttle Launch Weather Officer monitored conditions until the final decision to scrub a launch was announced." Or, presumably until some point at launch or soon thereafter?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed this sentence; it seems redundant considering the other sentences about how weather is monitored to make sure it's safe to launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who do the various orbiters and equipment actually belong to? With the Apollo material, it's often the Smithsonian on loan.
  • In the popular culture section, I might mention Lee Correy's Shuttle Down, especially as it apparently led NASA to secure emergency landing rights on Easter Island.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any sources linking the book with establishing Easter Island as an abort site. I'm fine with mentioning the book itself; any idea on a reliable source to see the plot summary (the Shuttle Down page references print media and the Internet Speculative Fiction Database). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a copy of the book itself (that I took ashore in my backpack on my visit to Easter Island in February 2014).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt: Do you have a source for this? Easter Island was needed for an abort for a polar launch from Vandenberg, and was developed as a base by the Manned Orbiting Laboratory project in the 1960s. I thought it was abandoned in 1969, but if not I will add a note to that effect to the MOL article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No source, just remember reading it at the time. And part of the premise of the book was that there were no such rights.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I found some references [2][3] and have updated the MOL article to note this. 20:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good with the changes and what Hawkeye7 has suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up the orbiter illustration in the Specifications section
    Scalled up to 600 px. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
    What do you think should be expanded? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alt text added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:LiftingBodies.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:President_Nixon_and_James_Fletcher_Discuss_the_Space_Shuttle_-_GPN-2002-000109.jpg. Same with File:Hubble_First_Servicing_EVA_-_GPN-2000-001085.jpg, File:Space_Shuttle_Orbiter-Illustration.jpg, File:020408_STS110_Atlantis_launch.jpg.
    Changed the sources to their archive links. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7 edit

A pity that WP:Spaceflight has no A class assessment process, so we come here. The article is a top-level one, so each section has a sub-article. Writing top-down like this is more difficult (but much quicker) than working bottom up, and the main problems with the article are structural, but fixable.

  • Following from Nick-D's comments, I agree that the cost of launches and operations should be added to this page. I would put it in the Post-landing processing section.
    Despite my misgivings, the consensus seems to be that this page should be more about the program and not the spacecraft. I will add it in. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added it in (took me long enough!). I decided to make a new section about the program as a whole, and have added it under there. Let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first thought was that a {{for}} template should be added to clarify the relationship between this article and the Space Shuttle Program article. However, on looking at that article, I find that there isn't anything in it that is not duplicated in this one, except for the Support vehicles section, which I believe belongs here. My strong recommendation is that that section be moved here and the Space Shuttle Program article be reduced to a redirect, and that this article, as is, becomes the top level article.
    Sounds good. I will work on that. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the Specifications section, which belongs in the Orbiter article.
    Sounds good. I'm not a fan of specifications sections ever, so no complaints from me on removing it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the Support vehicles section here in its place.
    Will do. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently working on getting the support vehicles properly sources. Any idea on info about the Orbiter Transfer System? I can't find any good sources about it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the Orbiters on display section, which belongs in the Orbiter article and not here.
    I'm glad you agree. I didn't like putting it in the original article, but it was already there when I started working on it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need two Buran links in the See Also? Remove one. Suggest adding List of Space Shuttle missions instead.
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a section on the crew and their roles
    Where would you put this in the article? My thought is to put it as a sub-section under the Orbiter section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Space Shuttle design process is a tragic mess. Do you have designs on overhauling it? I can add it to my own work list.

Unfortunately a lot of Shuttle-related articles are a bit of a mess. I do intend to work on it and other Shuttle articles. Fortunately for me but unfortunately for my Wikipedia editing, I'm moving to the UK next month, so I'll be without most of my reference material until that arrives in the late summer/early fall. But the 2016 book by Jenkins has an entire volume dedicated to the development of the Shuttle, so I'm looking forward to eventually getting around to that. But there will be no hurt feelings if you get to it before me! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have Heppenheimer's books, and just finished reading reading John Logsdon's After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American Space Program, which I highly recommend. I have Jenkins on order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenkins books arrived in the mail the other day. May take a while to get through them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it! Mine is getting packed up next week for my move; I need to get what quality time I have with it left before I don't see it until the fall! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I think I have addressed all of your comments; please let me know if you have any other feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some typos:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all of your feedback Hawkeye7. I was definitely pretty intimidated for an FAC when I saw the efforts that you and Kees08 had to put in for some of your previous collaborations, but I figured there would at least be no lack of information about the Space Shuttle. I appreciate your specific and guided feedback that made it clear what you want, and look forward to further improving the Space Shuttle articles (especially on my upcoming funemployment period). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • fn 1 publisher?
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 2 page number?
    Hawkeye7 I don't have access to the book, and I'm striking out on finding an alternate source of that information in Jenkins or on the web. My vote is to leave it as is, but I defer to your experience on this one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 4, 6, 7, 10, 17, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 37 link NASA but fn 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 38, 39, 41 and 47 do not. (Suggest not linking publishers)
    Unlinked NASA as a publisher. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 7 and 15 are the only books with a location (which need not be linked)
    Pardon my ignorance, but what are you looking to change here? Is the issue that they have a link to a PDF for them? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 11 link Max Faget
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 18 publisher?
    Added as a website parameter. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 29 use website instead of publisher
    Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 36 replace website nasa.gov with publisher NASA
    Fixed; used publisher parameter instead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 40 capitalise "the"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 42 use magazine instead of publisher for Aviation Week
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 43 use magazine instead of publisher for Air & Space Magazine.
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 44 is the only one where a magazine also has a publisher. Possibly because its correct name is IEEE Spectrum (consider using cite magazine instead)
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks edit
  • fn 4 is okay, but the "Space Transport System" naming appears only in the lead, and nowhere in the body. If it's no important, why is it in the lead?
    Updated. Although it's not a commmonly-used term compared to "Space Shuttle" I did want it to stay on the page because of the use of "STS." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 40 is pretty contentious, and is not supported by the source
    Added reference from Jenkins (Old Reliable when it comes to references needing backup during this review) Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 42 does not support the statement, nor does the associated fn 13. (Although both contain a lot of good information not in the article.)
    Updated page for fn 13 to include III-490, when there is a breakdown of the budget, which was based upon 24 missions per year. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 48 does not support the (true) statement
    The description was updated to match what is in the synopsis of the ref. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 20, 30, 46 okay
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passed Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Huricanehink edit

Support. I came here from an FAC that I'm co-nomming (so if you have time, I'd appreciate a review in return).

Thanks for doing this review! I'll take a look at your FAC as well! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain jettison on its first usage?
    I added a wikilink for its use in the SRB category. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After landing at Edwards, the orbiter was flown back to the KSC on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, a specially modified Boeing 747. - the previous sentence mentioned two possible landing locations. Given that, I suggest this sentence say After landing, the orbiter...'
    I took a different approach and wrote "If the landing occurred at Edwards, the orbiter..." to make it more clear that the SCA was conditional on where the landing occurred; it didn't make much sense the way I had previously written it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to how important it is, could you perhaps go into a tiny bit more detail on Commercial Crew Development on its first usage? Perhaps something about why it didn't have to rely on Russia at that point?
    I disagree with your point here. While the Commercial Crew program is an awesome step forward (in my opinion), the Space Shuttle had little to do with it, and the only connection between the two is that they were different generations of human-capable American-launched spacecraft. I think the sentence in the lead communicates that the US was reliant on Russia in between the two programs. But I did realize that I only included commercial launch info in the lead and not the body of the article, so I have put in a new sentence in the retirement section. Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as reconnaissance, satellite attack, and employing air-to-ground weapons - since the first two are nouns, I believe you should strike employing to make all three of this list as nouns.
    I changed it to "employment" and moved it to the end to keep it consistent with nouns. I just felt like it was awkward to leave it as "air-to-ground weapons"
  • In the late-1950s, the Air Force began developing the partially reusable X-20 Dyna-Soar. - I'd like something added here, like "the first craft capable of being in low Earth orbit", or whyever it is important.
    Little confused by this point. The DynaSoar was conceived as a reusable piloted glider, which is explained to me a need of the Air Force in the previous sentence. I feel like this sentence explains that this is what was developed to fulfill that need. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I realize now that it was my own confusion from going between the FAC page and the article. This is fine. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 1969, the Space Shuttle Task Group issued a report that determined the Shuttle would support a space station, launch, service, and retrieve satellites, and support short-duration crewed missions - the end of this sentence doesn't work well with regards to finishing the clause "that determined the Shuttle would..." I guess because "would support" is a vague type of verb. I suggest splitting it into something like - "the Shuttle would support short-duration crewed missions and a space station, as well as the capability to launch, service, and retrieve satellites." Or however you prefer.
    Didn't realize it until now, but my version was definitely an awkward sentence structure. I went with your recommendation! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Rocketdyne in lede?
    Linked! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "space tug "? Likewise "nuclear stage"
    Linked to its Wiki page! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After establishing the need for a reusable, heavy-lift spacecraft, NASA and the Air Force began determining the design requirements of their respective services --> "determined"
    Done. I also changed "establishing" to "they established" earlier in the sentence to keep the tense consistent. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The instrument panels contained over 2,100 displays and controls - is there no exact number? 5,000 is technically "over 2,100"
    I wasn't able to find an exact number, and the "over 2,100" is directly from the source. I understand the inexact figure leaves the door open for any number of displays and consoles, but I want to lift directly from a reliable source when its ambiguous. My guess is that the unspecific answer comes from variations between orbiters (and even for a single orbiter as it underwent changes) as well as different interpretations of what constitutes a control and a display. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, makes sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "once they were travelling slower than Mach 5" - could you add km/h and mph after Mach 5?
    The sources I have for this info (both of Jenkins's books) simply state Mach 5. As the speed of sound, and subsequently Mach numbers, vary depending upon air density, I'm hesitant to estimate the speed in km/h or mph to which this is referring. Since the use and safety of the instrument deployment will only really be affected by true airspeed, they would also only be accounting for the Mach number and not a speed relative to the ground. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally understood. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • up to 15 feet (4.6 m) in diameter - the rest of the article has metric first
    Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent whether you abbreviate kg or not. Ditto km
    Fixed (I think I got every example)! I switched them all to the abbreviations. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many landings were at KSC?
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a runway at least 7,500 feet (2,300 m) long - again, metric first
    In the case of aviation terms (primarily altitude, but also this example of runway length) I chose to use feet because that is the internationally accepted unit for those measurements. Thoughts on leaving it as is? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, the featured article Shuttle–Mir program uses metric units first (but only briefly). Since the infobox of the SS article uses metric first, I suggest changing the order so all of the units in the article are metric first, then imperial second. I won't make a big stink out of it though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to make it all metric-first. I was just being too set in my ways, despite preferring metric. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is most of the budget in 2012 USD instead of 2020 USD? Have you considered whether it's worth adding inflation figures?
    The 2012 USD estimates are the official figures published by NASA in a review of the Space Shuttle's cost. I did consider using the inflation template, but decided not to. As those values are already estimating inflation and costs over the 40ish years of the development and operation of the Space Shuttle, I didn't want to add further uncertainty by using two inflation estimates. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the shuttle retirement because of the Columbia disaster? The timing is close.
    Public opinion about the Space Shuttle may have swayed decisions on the shuttle getting cancelled specifically when it did, but the retirement was not because of the Columbia disaster. The shuttle's original lifespan was never intended to be that long (although it was expected to launch more regularly). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything more about the discussions about the retirement? Like, "NASA administrator announced on January X..." The article goes from everything generally fine for the mission, then it stops. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it seems to end abruptly. I added this: "President George W. Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration, which called for the retirement of the Space Shuttle once it completed construction of the ISS." Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was safed in preparation for display - is "safed" normal wording?
    It's a common aviation term. A synonym is "disarmed" but I don't think that's appropriate with a non-weapon like the Space Shuttle. It's the best term I can think of for the permanent deactivation of the orbiter. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "decommissioned" or anything equivalent like that appropriate? I had never heard of it that, but then, I'm not around aviation terms everyday. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to go with "Following each orbiter's final flight, it was processed to make it safe for display." I don't like "decommissioned," but I think saying "safed" may be too much jargon. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't mention anything about where the shuttles ended up after their retirement.
    I had previously removed the section about the retirement locations per the recommendation from Hawkeye7, but your comment made me think there should at least be a mention of them, so I added the sentence stating the retirement location of the 4 orbiters (including Enterprise). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links in See Also could use some explanation (I wondered what Buran was)
    I added a quick description for the Buran, but felt the other titles were self-explanatory. Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, the article is in decent shape. I don't think it would take much to get my support. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Thanks for working on this important article! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I think I have addressed all of your comments! Please let me know if you have any further feedback. I appreciate the help! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the work. I just wanted a little follow up on metric, the retirement, "safed". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: I made some edits based upon your comments; please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm happy to support now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

@Nikkimaria: Are you satisfied with the images? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG notes edit

MOS:SANDWICH and WP:NBSP attention needed. Things like Mode C, S band, Apollo 12 as well as the usual on units. That infobox ... ugh! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the MV Freedom Star photo to the right side on the page, and removed two photos, so it should be in line with MOS:SANDWICH now! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added nbsp tags for Apollo 12, Mode C, S band, and Ku band. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added nbsp tags for all monetary values and time units in article and infobox (hours, minutes, seconds, timezone, AM/PM). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Could you please clarify what you are looking for on the infobox? I have added nbsp tags to everything that should have it (as I understand it) and removed the photos that were sandwiching it. Was that it or are you recommending further changes? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it is unlikely anything can be done to cut down the infobox (per the politics of infoboxes) and did not expect you to be able to fix that; I was just registering my general dislike of long infoboxes :). Thanks for getting to the rest of my nitpicks so fast! (By the way, short infobox parameters are rarely affected by line breaks, in case you want to minimize NBSPing there ... up to you.) The article is approaching 10,000 words of prose, so keeping its size manageable may be a chore over time; aggressive use of WP:SS could be your friend ;). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thanks for the feedback; I go back and forth on what belongs in the infobox, but I think it does have useful info in it as it stands (although I'm definitely biased)! I think I'll leave the NBSPs in the infobox; as I understand it, there isn't any harm in it. I'm sure keeping this article's quality up and length down will be a task I have to return to every now and then. Please let me know if there is any other feedback you have for this article; I've learned a lot during my first FAC process, but I'm looking forward to completing the job and moving on to new pages! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good ... the article is too long for me to read further, when pressed for time. Unwatching now, good luck here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hope to see you on future FACs! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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_article_candidates/Space_Shuttle/archive1&oldid=967073747"