Talk:Advanced Gemini

Article Spelling standards

I'm not sure quite what happened, but someone used British English extensively throughout this article. This is an Article about an American program, so I went through as best I could and corrected all of the spelling. Wikipedia standards state that articles should be written to the standard to which they pertain. American article, American standard. Alyeska (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Advanced Gemini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose good, and complies with MoS.

   I made a number of minor copy-edits.[2]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is well referenced.

   Is there evidence to support the use of the Encyclopedia Astronautica as a WP:RS? It looks like a personal web-site to me. Y, will take that in good faith.

   Ref #3, #13 are actually hosted at Encyclopedia Astronautica, not NASA. Is there evidence that these are actually NASA documents?

   Ref #20, #24 are hosted at a NASA site, so the references should say so.

   Does Mark Wade have proven expertise in this field? As most of the references are to his web site (Encyclopedia Astronautica), we need something to support his expertise. Y, as per above.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and not unnecessarily detailed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Flex-paresev.jpg is tagged as missing essential source information.

   All other images OK.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold for seven days for above issues to be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

   THanks for addressing those concerns. i am now happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

   Mark Wade has been cited by a number of other reliable sources, including NASA and the Discovery Channel. I don't think he has any formal qualifications in the field, but he has been published by reliable sources as well. According to a short autobiographical piece which used to appear on his site, he has had articles published in "International Defence Review, Fliegerrevue, Spaceflight, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Modern Astronomer and the HBO 'From the Earth to the Moon' web site [sic]". He used to have a page on the site listing comments made by experts in the field, however this no longer exists. A copy can be found in the Internet Archive. The documents hosted on that site do exist elsewhere, and have been cited in other NASA documents, however as far as I know the copies on Astronautix are the only ones on the internet. I think that the site's reliability has already been established, so the documents can be assumed to be unedited. I will have a look for a source for the image that you have raised concerns about, however if I cannot find one then I have found a different image which could replace it. With regards to the sources which you claim have incorrect publisher data, shouldn't the original publisher be considered more important than the website it was found on, for the purpose of displaying it. --GW… 08:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to say something like "NASA document, archived at Astronautix", as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that I had got the work and publisher fields of the references mixed up, so I have corrected that. I have mentioned the hosting of the documents in the references, and I have uploaded a new image to replace the one whose copyright status could not be confirmed. --GW… 09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing this article. --GW… 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Advanced Gemini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426032520/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemini.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemini.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721035424/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mol.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mol.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611001322/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090607025824/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/winemini.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/winemini.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)