Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spacecraft propulsion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Spacecraft propulsion

[edit] Review commentary

Another of the '04 FAs, this article has no references, inline or otherwise. The times they have a-changed, and this article shouldn't be featured as it currently stands. -Fsotrain₀₉ 03:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Space Projects are all defunct, and there's no original author. I see LouScheffer and Wolfkeeper often in the edit history, so will leave notes for them. Sandy 03:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message for Aarichba, who shows up repeatedly and relatively recently in the edit history, and one for SeizureDog, who first proposed on the article talk page having it go through FAR. -Fsotrain₀₉ 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fsotrain, besides the lack of citations, can you please list your other reasons for wanting to review the article, per the criteria at WP:WIAFA? Thanks, Sandy 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the citations. The problem is even more serious with this article. It has no references! No sources! Nothing!!--Yannismarou 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is what I call a quaternary article- it summarises the other (what I may loosely call tertiary) articles within the wikipedia. I personally do not believe that quaternary articles necessarily need sources, other than tertiary wikipedia articles; since the tertiary articles are nearly always well referenced. When you try to put a reference into a quaternary article you usually find that the best place to put a reference in the article is in one of the tertiary articles. :-) This means that a quaternary article will never reach FA status. :-( I consider this to be a fault of the FA process; not of the article. There's a similar problem with jet engine. We could fix the problem in either case by adding bullshit or trivial links; count me out on that, thanks. I just don't care enough about FA status to degrade the article quality or add duplication to the wikipedia so as to make FA status, it's a waste of my time. We need to fix the stupid process, than plaster mostly unnecessary sources over thousands of articles in the wikipedia (n.b. where they are unnecessary).WolfKeeper 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. The references section is simply a header and the {{Unreferenced}} template. There is nothing listed. But for another issue, I do not consider the prose brilliant or compelling. There are numerous ambiguous antecent/pronoun correlations. The overall tone is quite stilted. I do not have the technical knowledge to evaluate whether the article is comprehensive in its coverage, but a concern about this has been raised on the article's talk page. -Fsotrain₀₉ 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear that people who don't understand an article are the best people to review it; that's possibly another problem with the FA process. Perhaps that also means that FA articles can't be on technical subjects; and indeed there seems to be few technical FA articles. Or perhaps FA articles must be for general understanding; that would argue that this article shouldn't be FA anyway.WolfKeeper 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think this article is savable if the editors are willing to add proper references (Wikipedia articles cannot be references for Wikipedia articles) and clean up the language a bit. I've noticed the number one reason articles get defeatured is that no one works on them after problems are pointed out. If you want to save the article fix the problem, don't try to change the rules to your personal agenda. Jay32183 21:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Your agenda is that references are inherently good, regardless of quality or need, so it's important that the rules not change and that this must remain so. Would you say that's a fair summary of your position?WolfKeeper 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is impossible for an article to be internally referenced. There is nothing stopping you from copying those references into this article other than your unwillingness to do so. I have no agenda here. The rule is references, this article has no references, therefore the article breaks the rule. You can fix it, you are just unwilling to do so. Just so you know, references aren't just for featured articles, they are actually required for all wikipedia articles. Jay32183 23:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So... that's a yes, you do have an agenda, and you think wasting everyone's time in this way is a good thing. WolfKeeper 00:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Using FAR to point out that an article that currently has featured status doesn't have references is not a waste of time, the rules have changed over time and this is to make sure all the rules are being retroactively applied. Now there is no sound argument that would allow an encyclopedia article not to cite its sources. The only thing you've said is that you're unwilling to take any action except argue with people. If you want the article to remain featured add references and inline citations, if you don't want the article to remain featured then there's no reason to try to contradict the people pointing out its flaws. Every article on Wikipedia is supposed to have references, that is not my opinion, that is a rule of Wikipedia. Jay32183 00:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you just made my point, again. You haven't pointed out any flaws. You've pointed out that it doesn't have any references. That's not a flaw. That's a process violation for FA status. What you haven't done is point out where it needs any references. Incidentally, there is a rule about not blindly following rules in the Wikipedia; but I have never, ever seen it applied for FA status issues; which should make you think about how much of a tick-box process it is, but probably won't.WolfKeeper 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not having references is a serious flaw. You have made no point, because you haven't made a logical claim. Articles need references for verifiabilty, and Wikipedia is not a valid reference for Wikipedia. You're claim that the article doesn't require references doesn't have any supporting evidence, other than that you are either too lazy to do it or you don't care about the article. If there aren't any references how do we know any of this is true, how do we know it isn't original research? The lack of references is the complaint that the nominator made, either address the coplaint by adding references or stop complaining. Jay32183 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh. Still nothing then.WolfKeeper 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Downgrade - this summary article has no hope of getting enough references to justify keeping its status. I've seen it before with other similar articles. Summary articles do not FA make, they're too internally referenced. It doesn't have to make sense, it's the process.WolfKeeper 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's not easy for summary articles on technical subjects to have enough references to be featured articles, but it's definitely possible—see welding, for example. If you'd like more info on why citations/references are important, see User:Spangineer/inline citations. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've added some citation needed tags, hopefully that will inspire regular editors to add some references. As I'm not an expert on the subject I don't have the ability to verify the article myself, since no references are listed at all. Jay32183 01:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll list some of the problems, then :-)

• The article is very listy, full of sections that should be converted to (hopefully compelling and brilliant) prose.
• Half of See also is capitalized, half isn't: it's strange to find such easy to fix items unattended to, giving rise to concern that no one has tended the article since it's "brilliant prose days" promotion.
• This is strange: "Below is a summary of some of the more popular, proven technologies, followed by increasingly speculative methods." Since there are no inline cites, we don't know if what was speculative two years ago is proven today, and so on. Speculative/proven according to whom, and when? Has it been kept up to date? Without citations, we can't really tell.
• Weasle words, which can be the result of an uncited article: example "The dissipation of waste heat from the powerplant may make any propulsion system requiring a separate power source infeasible for interstellar travel." May? Tell us more, give us a cite. Another weasle introduction: "Propulsion methods can be classified based on their means of accelerating the reaction mass. There are also some special methods for launches, planetary arrivals, and landings." Can be or are; tell us more. Another unexplained "may", along with a redundant *very* often here: "For some missions, solar energy may be sufficient, and has very often been used, but for others nuclear energy will be necessary; engines drawing their power from a nuclear source are called nuclear electric rockets."
• Prose issues: we find a section that begins "In addition, a variety of hypothetical propulsion techniques have been considered that would require entirely new principles of physics to realize." Strange way to start a section: in addition to what? (Content from a previous section.) Punctuation needs attention: "High thrust is of vital importance for Earth launch, thrust has to be greater than weight (see also gravity drag)." A one-sentence paragraph not incorporated into prose: "See rocket engine for a listing of various kinds of rocket engines using different heating methods, including chemical, electrical, solar, and nuclear."
• Section headings can use some work per WP:MOS; the word "propulsion" is repeated often.

Those are some ideas to start on: the article could benefit from some shine and polish, as well as some inline citations. Sandy 02:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article needs inline citations (1. c.), and its listiness is rather awful in my opinion. By the way, only relevant references on Wikipedia are asked for and ones that are reliable, and inline citations remove original research and show people Wikipedia checks the facts. I state this due to the rather stupid argument above regarding how FA is "tickbox" and so on - the article needs work to maintain FA status and improve - either do the work or say what needs to be done for others to do it, otherwise you're wasting people's time here. This is FA review, not the FA process, so make criticisms on the FA process's talk page. LuciferMorgan 18:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Citation needed This article may need to cite sources, but I took the liberty to "be bold" and to suppress the "citation needed" tag for the following sentence : "No such spacecraft has yet been built, but many designs have been discussed." That fact looks like pretty common knowledge to me. Let's not add sources for every single fact in one article... Tovarich1917 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of references. Marskell 11:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• delist, it's perfectly possible for summary articles to be referenced, look at something like Australia or one of the country articles, both are heavily dependent on subarticles and only provide brief portions of their content, but each references the parts that it includes in the main article from sources listed in the article. Every article in wikipedia should be able to stand on its own; not everybody is going to have all 1.4 million cross references available. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I in no way consider Australia to be comparable. Australia is a discrete chunk of land on the Pacific rim. You can quote population, land size etc. etc. and reference that. Whereas these propulsion systems cover a very wide range. A more comparable article might be something far more general like Islands (it turns out that has no references either, I do not believe that to be coincidental). But even Islands is an inexact comparison because these propulsion systems are more wildly different than Islands are.WolfKeeper 21:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. Uncitated and listy.--Yannismarou 10:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that 'listy' should be inappropriate for this kind of article; IMO that's just a facile level consideration of policy. There's an enormous number of different propulsion systems, with astonishingly different properties. Saying that this article shouldn't contain lists is, in my POV, in this case, inappropriate. To turn this around, would the article be really any better if we deleted the lists and/or turned the lists into text? I would argue strongly not. I think it would make it a horrible article utterly undeserving of FA status. Instead, doesn't that point to an FA process flaw, since useful articles that may be well worth reading can never be made FA? Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to be a reference work, not a 'good read'? Isn't this actually a good reference article for jumping off into the wikipedia? And isn't it very important for Wikipedia to have such articles? And shouldn't they be FA even if 'listy'? I would say so.WolfKeeper 21:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Remove No progress made on referencing article. Jay32183 13:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per my own nom., and the unfortunately lack of article improvement. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have listed this article with the new Wikipedia:Article Referencing Drive. It's nomination there has received support. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)