Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2011 in spaceflight/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 23:22, 2 November 2012 [1].

2011 in spaceflight[edit]

Featured list candidates/2011 in spaceflight/archive1

Nominator(s): — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a highly detailed, well-sourced list of all major spaceflight events in 2011, including orbital and suborbital launches, spacewalks and deep-space rendezvous events. It also includes an informative summation of the year in spaceflight above the main list. As far as I am aware, it is complete; all known launches in 2011 are included. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several fundamental reasons:

The article needs a proper lead, not two sentences. Leads in list are typically longer than in articles and are normally expected to be referenced. See WP:LEAD.
The table is not accessible, per WP:DTT. This includes the need of a table caption and the use if scopes. Rows should not be used as headers inside tables.
The entire section "Overview of orbital spaceflight" is unreferenced, as is "Deep space rendezvous" and "EVAs"
I find the table very difficult to read, in part because information is combined in three rows. It took me several minutes to actually understand how to comprehend the table. There seem to be ten actual columns, some which could be explained in short-hand and one which could be color/symbol-explained (outcome). I would strongly advise that the main table be made as a sortable one-row-per-launch system. Use footnotes if comments are necessary.
Abbreviations need to be spelled out, either in the list or as a last resort in a key
There are citation needed, disambiguation needed and clarification needed tags.
In tables, anything which is permitted linked should be linked at every occurrence.
The UN flag should not be used as a "world" or "international" flag; it can only be used for actual UN organizations.

That being said, this is a most interesting list and if it is properly formatted it has more than a good chance at reaching FL status. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Arsenikk. The list also needs tables that meet WP:ACCESS, as various doesn't right now, including scope cols. It needs a proper lead, per WP:LEAD for this list, in particular. There are even some citation needed, disambiguation needed and clarification needed tags, that need to be fixed. And, in tables, anything which is permitted linked should be linked at every occurrence, as was said above. Categories should also be sorted in alphabetical order. There needs to be a caption for the infobox. Alt text needs to be added to the images per MOS:IMAGES. And, abbreviations need to be spelled out, as further said above, per MOS:ACRO. Are there any external links? Link problems in references. And, lots of full sections are unreferenced, as said above. See the featured list criteria. TBr and ley 21:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nowhere near featured standard

Main issue is that tables do not meet accessibility guidelines, per MOS:DTT as Arsenikk mentioned
Another issue is the referencing it is unclear what is referencing the tables. Some of it is referenced while the majority is not. The overview of orbital spaceflight has hardly any inline citations. The refernces that are give don't look reliable, what makes Encyclopaedia Astronautica, Space Launch Report and Space Information Center reliable?
You have a section entitled EVAs, with no explanation of what that term means. So to the average reader it is unaware what that table is referring to
I would also expect the lead to be longer per WP:LEAD. There should be at least three paragraphs
Prose issues as well, it mainly just reads like a list of events and is definitely not of "professional standard" as the criteria state it should be. For instance: multiple sentences starting with "On..." which creates no flow. "After resupplying the space station, Atlantis returned to Earth, landing at Kennedy Space Center's Shuttle Landing Facility at 09:57 UTC on 21 July, and concluding thirty years of Space Shuttle operations." what were the supplies? the last bit of the sentence is grammatically incorrect.
"Numerous scientific exploration missions were begun in 2011. In March 2011, the MESSENGER probe became the first artificial satellite of the planet Mercury. In July, the Dawn spacecraft became the first artificial satellite of the asteroid 4 Vesta." Surely you can be more specific than numerous? Another example of prose reading like a list of items

There is too much wrong with this list for it to be promoted anytime soon. I suggest withdrawing this nom, FLC is not a substitute for a peer review process and it should have gone there first. NapHit (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.