Talk:Expedition 12
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Related projects: | ||
 |
WikiProject Spaceflight | Importance to Spaceflight: High |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Human spaceflight WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the manned exploration of space. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| This article contains material that originally came from a NASA website or printed source. According to their site usage guidelines, "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". For more information, please review NASA's use guidelines. |
I think the picture of the solar ecpise looks a little awkward just sitting there. Chuck 03:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I agree, either scale it down or remove it for failing to be important...
- Maybe moving to the left side, so it doesn't clash with the infobox Chuck 08:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I hope this works out. I put a link to the picture under a See Also Heading. I think this looks the best, and is the most appropriate. Chuck 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's not worth having just a link to a picture.. either have the image in the article, or don't bother mentioning it. the reason i changed it is because it looks like a mistake, to be honest.. and the reason it looks awkward over on the right like that (probably where it should be) is because of the actual problem with the article: there's not enough text! Mlm42 09:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, not enough text. I don't think the solar eclipse though, is what the Expedition 12 mission was about. In fact, it's not at all. It probably should be just a link, or not be there...although having a link is nice. However, I am open to other opinions about it. Although I definately don't think it's any good on the right side...at least not until the article is filled in more. Chuck 09:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good stuff. Chuck 17:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's not worth having just a link to a picture.. either have the image in the article, or don't bother mentioning it. the reason i changed it is because it looks like a mistake, to be honest.. and the reason it looks awkward over on the right like that (probably where it should be) is because of the actual problem with the article: there's not enough text! Mlm42 09:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
