| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review for FL to ask for some suggestions:
- Is the list too long for readers? If yes, how to shorten it?
- Should the lead section be expanded? If yes, how?
Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello! My opinions, for what they're worth:
- The list is definitely long, but I don't think we're expecting people to read it one line at a time- an article like this, they're scrolling to find the flight(s) they're interested in. So I think it's okay to be encyclopaedic.
- I would like to see a longer, more welcoming lead section. Give us a really quick condensed version of what is currently the Overview section- just the big highlights of the year. Have a look at 1951 in spaceflight as your model.
- Speaking of which, having your lead section should be your "Overview", so I think that section could be titled differently or split up. Maybe "manned spaceflights", "unmanned craft", and "technological innovation"?
- As I say, just my tuppence- feel free to discard if it's not helpful. Good luck! JRennocks (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)