Talk:African Space Agency

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by P199 (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the African Union has set up a space agency in a space city? Source: [1]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jailangkung
  • Comment:

Created by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/African Space Agency; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I'm starting a review. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - There's more than one source with the title "Is there a need for an African space agency?". This one, for example, concludes that there isn't. This negative view is not presented in the article.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - The hook teases with its talk of a space city. The reader is likely to be disappointed that the article has a red link for this. Perhaps this should be unlinked and the section expanded to give them more details of the space city.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The biggest issue is balance as there seems to be plenty of negative opinion out there. Also, I'm not understanding the reference to Jailangkung in the nominator's comment. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that was the QPQ, I must have put it in the wrong box. Regarding neutrality, those are older articles of the sort of discussion that always precedes the creation of any body (is it necessary, what would it do, etc.). The opposition was the same as it always is for these projects, money better elsewhere, another white elephant sort of thing. I don't see that as due. I also haven't put any positive opinion in. In both cases, as the org was just founded, there isn't much actually behind it either way (well, a delay of opening from 2022 to 2023, but again that is reasonably routine and I haven't seen any source call it out). On the Space City, it's a newly built complex that also holds the Egyptian Space Agency. I can add more to this article, and alternatively I suppose an article could be created for it; I thought it worth a red link although I'm not 100% on how notability for that sort of infrastructure development. CMD (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I wondered if Jailangkung was the QPQ but didn't recognise your abbreviated sig of CMD there. I've updated the review now to acknowledge this.

But I'm still not content with the other issues. I'll look at the topic more closely myself.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have found a second source noting a different person with a similar concern over prioritisation from before the agency was founded, so I have added that citing both that source (in a CNN report) and Martinez 2012. I also found two sources noting a slowdown in 2020 due to budget and benefit concerns, and so added that as well. CMD (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: status report? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Seemingly abandoned by the previous reviewer, so I'm reviewing it. The nominator seems to have addressed the concerns adequately. BorgQueen (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)