Talk:NASASpaceflight

Lack of referencing

The un-addressed concerns about lack of referencing lead me to conclude that this is an non-notable website and a suitable candidate for WP:AfD. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The article looks much stronger, but is still lacking references for several statements that may be contested. I don't object to the reverts of my edits, but readding a redlink and an uncited subscription service may make the article more vulnerable to flagging for advertising or notability. Are there any trade/industry coverage of this website that could be used to help source this content? Since this article showed up in a thread on the website's forum, I'm hoping some of the members will have knowledge or access to some suitable sources. Flowanda | Talk 21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, agreed. I'm still working on adding references for the couple of remaining {{Fact}} tags, by talking to the people who work at the site (through their message board). The article is still a work in progress, basically.

Regarding the red links, please see WP:REDDEAL for amplification on why I added and readded the links. Basically, red links shouldn't be an issue. Red links are the primary method to achieve Wikipedia growth, after all.

As for the L2 service, I did copy edit the text to remove the peacock terminology. It's more a simple statement of facts now, so I didn't actually disregard your removal of the section completely. As I stated in the edit summary though, I think that the notability of the service is established by the text (including their own materiel). If I can find a reference to the service in a third party publication I will certainly add it, however.
— V = I * R (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding notability, the site has been operational for seven years now and claims half a million visitors per month. Given that they often publish information not widely available in mainstream media, this should be regarded as a source of sometimes scarce information. Enquire (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

NASASpaceFlight.com

While the website logo is styled NASA spaceflight.com all text styles are NASASpaceFlight.com ... perhaps this page should me moved there and this page redirect? Enquire (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree, as that is what the site seems to use in their own publication of their name. N2e (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have requested the move at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests. -- ToE 09:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Moved. -- ToE 07:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Website logo

Please note, that website logotype was renewed. --Kaganer (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite

for anyone interested, I am in the process of rewriting the entire article. I'm just about ready to publish. You can find it here: User:Hendrikharry/NASASpaceFlight --Hendrikharry (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

merged --Hendrikharry (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Was that before or after the "reads like an advertisment" tag was added? if after, do we think it resolved the issue? I mod at NSF so best not actually edit any of it. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the history, the "reads like an advertisement" tag was added after that rewrite. After doing a quick copyedit on the article I must admit (as a long-time wiki editor but also a long-time NSF reader) that it still reads very much like it was written by someone close to the site, rather than the expected impartial tone. Also of note is that all but 10 of the 37 references are primary sources. As a result, I think it will be difficult to achieve consensus for removing the tag just yet. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm really too close to the topic to take a crack at de-advertisment-ification, I'm afraid. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)