Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NERVA/archive2

< 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2022 [1].

NERVA

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about NERVA, the NASA nuclear rocket project. Unlike its forerunner, Project Rover, it developed entire engines and not just reactors for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanamonde93 do you feel that your opposition at the last FAC still applies, or have the redundancy issues been resolved? (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: I don't have the time to do an exhaustive analysis, but at first glance, I don't believe they have. These are the combined diffs since the previous FAC at NERVA and Project Rover, and one can see that no restructuring has occurred, nor has substantial unique content been added. Very large portions of the two articles are thus functionally identical. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a very rough indicator of redundancy, take a look at this result from Earwig's tool [2]. To be clear, I am not saying there's copyvio here, I'm just trying to estimate shared content. Also, this is a serious underestimate, because Earwig only flags text matches, not content matches. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point is accepted. This is an artefact of the way that an encyclopaedia organizes articles around subjects. The separation of Rover from NERVA was there before expansion began, and there was no support for merging. They diverge after the material on Project Rover. While DYK has rules about shared content, there are none at FAC, and my contention is that the NERVA article is complete. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, comprehensive and accurate. There's not much else that I can say. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An amazing article. I have added some explanatory text on rocket basics so readers don't have to click out to understand the basic concepts. I also mentioned ARPA, because I think it's useful to understand how the existing programs were split up. Other than that, I found it fascinating and complete. I was especially surprised by the budgets and manpower applied, as I had always thought of it as a relatively small program, but with 1,100 people at a single contractor we are certainly in the area of big science! I'm not sure about the use of "reckoned" as that might not translate properly, but that's no reason to hold up an FA. Good to go here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "which may be more efficient than chemical engines" maybe "could" or "might" for "may", since we're dealing with the past?
    Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " They reluctantly concluded that nuclear rockets were essential for deep space exploration, but not yet technically feasible.[5][6]" Since their reluctant conclusion is quite late in the sentence, I'd put a "while" after "that".
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " This combination of features allows a nuclear engine to outperform a chemical one, they generally aim to have at least twice the specific impulse of a chemical engine.[18]" perhaps the comma should be a semicolon as both parts of the sentence would pass as sentences on their own.
    Replaced comma with semicolon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You shorten Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory both as LASL and as Los Alamos. I might pick one or the other and use it consistently.
    Settled on LASL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lewis is double-linked.
    Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then, on 12 April, the Soviet Union launched Yuri Gagarin into orbit on Vostok 1, once again demonstrating their technological superiority." Possibly "their" should be "its" in AmEng.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Test Cell C was supposed to be complete in 1960, but NASA and AEC did not request funds for additional construction in 1960, although Senator Anderson provided them anyway." Two things. "But" and "although" in succession makes a sentence feel like a tennis match, and can we lose one use of "in 1960"?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Publisher for Chovit, A. R.; Plebuch, R. K?
  • Dewar, James doesn't have the state like the other refs
  • Robbins and Finger has "NASA Lewis Research Center, NASA"—is it needed both times?
  • You don't give the state for Burlington in Dewar like the others
  • retrieval dates missing for 16, 17 and 18
  • ref 6 should be either The Telegraph or The Daily Telegraph
  • Date missing for ref 104
    All of these have been added/corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • What makes ref 122 a high quality and reliable source?
    Space Media Network is a commercial news service. It has its own staff writers and also takes feed from wire services. The article in question was written by the NASA Narshall Space Flight Center.
    Seems valid to me. Aza24 (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability

Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Another classic. I note obiter dicta that I am content that NERVA is a free-standing article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For people who don't think you need the toolset or technical knowledge to work on content, for this article I had to edit {{Infobox rocket engine}} and {{Infobox nuclear reactor}} so the former could embed the latter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 11 May 2022 (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/NERVA/archive2&oldid=1088431708"