Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/Reviewpoints

These are comments raised during the ongoing Peer Review of 2008 in spaceflight, and how they are being implemented in the proposed new article format. --GW… 14:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Concern	Raised By	My opinion	Status	Action/Comments
My only real complaint is the size of the article; it sometimes takes quite long to load. A possible solution would to be move the missile test launches to a separate article.	Offliner	Disagree	Not done	This would take the list out of chronological order, to which objections have been raised
The lead section should include some kind of concise definition of Spaceflight.	Offliner	Agree	Done	A definition has been provided
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.	AZPR (bot)	Agree	Done	A lead section has now been written
Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT. Guides recommend having greater than 3% words in links, but be sure not to overlink words just to add more links.	AZPR (bot)	Agree	Done	Despite my initial objections, the format change (below) has provided a chance to eliminate some of these links
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.	AZPR (bot)	Agree	Done	Several images have now been added in the new lead section
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.	AZPR (bot)	Agree	Done	I have added an image of the launch of Chandraayan-1, other years can use images of other significant events
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article.	AZPR (bot)	Agree	Done	An infobox has been created, summarising the year in terms of orbital launches
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 36207DG, use 36207 DG, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 36207 DG.	AZPR (bot)	Invalid	Not done	Bot error, not an issue
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth. Specifically, an example is 36.207 DG.	AZPR (bot)	Agree	Later	Although the example given is an error, there are some cases where, with the new format, longer remarks sections can be used, allowing abbreviated units to be spelled out.
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.	AZPR (bot)	Agree	Not done	While I agree in principle, it is impossible to split the article without causing serious complications.
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), categorize (A) (British: categorise), programme (B) (American: program ).	AZPR (bot)	Disagree	Not done	With the exception of a small amount of American English in the EVAs section, which has been dealt with, most of the examples given are Proper Nouns, which should not be changed. The rest of the article is in British English.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.	AZPR (bot)	Agree	Deferred somebody else	While this should be done, it should be done by somebody who is less familiar to the article than I am, as I am likely to miss some of my own mistakes
The article needs a lead section. For content, I would take a look at some year in review articles and write a couple of paragraphs about the significant events. Just make sure everything in the lead is documented later in the article.	Wronkiew	Agree	Done	I have now added a lead section
I am unhappy about the width of the launch table. There are a couple ways you could go to improve this. One would be to collapse the table into a more complicated format like that seen in International Space Station.	Wronkiew	Agree	Done	I like that format, and I feel that rewriting TLS articles into it would be a significant improvement on the current format
The other would be to keep the width, but make the table more interactive by adding sorting capabilities.	Wronkiew	Disagree	Not done	I think that sorting tables are great for some things, but this is not one of them. The complexity of implementing it would outweigh the benefit, and the new table format has now made its implementation impossible.
The size of the launch table makes it difficult to discern overall themes, which is important for a timeline article like this. You might consider splitting it up into multiple tables for sub-orbital, orbital, and interplanetary missions. Also maybe government and commercial.	Wronkiew	Disagree	Not done	This would take the article out of chronological order, to which objections have been raised
I think you could do without launch times in the first column.	Wronkiew	Disagree	Not done	I really can't see an advantage to removing them
Some possible illustrations for the article could be pie charts showing launches by country or by purpose, and line charts comparing activity in space against previous years.	Wronkiew	Agree	Done	Although the line graph should probably stay where it is on timeline of spaceflight, some of the other graphs could be placed in the orbital launch summary section. I have inserted a pie chart showing launches by country. I think by purpose is a bad idea, as some spacecraft are used for multiple purposes, several satellites can be launched on the same rocket, and some organisations don't clearly announce what their satellites are used for.
I wouldn't put more images in the already bloated table, but if you started the launch section with a paragraph or two talking about the more significant events, some launch photos could appear there.	Wronkiew	Agree	Done	Some images have been placed in the lead section. There are none in the table
Same with the other sections. For the deep space section, obviously the 40th flyby of Titan doesn't need a photo, but a photo from MESSENGER or Phoenix would illustrate the significant events of the year.	Wronkiew	Disagree	Not done	The DSR and EVA sections are not in a suitable format to be illustrated
Phrases shouldn't end with a period, but sentences should. This applies to tables as well. For an example of what not to do, see the 11 February spacewalk remark.	Wronkiew	Inconclusive	On hold	I'm not sure how the new format affects this. Ideally, most phrases should be converted into sentences or vice versa
If you make all your tables sortable, you can use the dts template to correctly sort dates.	Wronkiew	Unnecessary	Not done	The new format makes sorting impossible
Encyclopedia Astronautica and JSR may not be reliable sources. I only mention this because I had trouble with these two at FAC.	Wronkiew	Inconclusive	Not done	I've never had any problems with them, and they are two of the only three nearly comprehensive sources that I am aware of.
The Baalke reference seems to have some extra characters in the note	Wronkiew	Agree	Done	That was an HTML comment. I'm not sure why it was displaying
Some footnotes place the date in parentheses, while others have the date at the end, just before the accessdate. These should be consistent.	Wronkiew	Unrelated	Not done	I believe that is a feature of Template:Cite web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I would like to have seen a table just for human spaceflights in 2008, though I can see how this would be tricky. Perhaps a table of humans launched and humans returned. Or maybe just totals per country.	Wronkiew	Agree	Done	This has been included in the lead and infobox
If this article gets too long, the launches table could be split out into a new article, and the summary could take its place.	Wronkiew	Possible	On hold	It may be an option at a later date, but for now no action is required on this
Some launches may be non-notable, particularly if the only reference to them is in a database.	Wronkiew	Disagree	Not done	This has already been discussed, and all launches in the article are considered notable enough for inclusion