Wikipedia:WikiProject Space

WikiProject Space Project discussion Space WikiProjects Space (coordinating) templates Astronomy ★Astronomical objects ☉Constellations task force Solar System Topics drive • Mars • Moon Spaceflight Human spaceflight task force • Unmanned spaceflight task force • Space stations working group • Timeline of spaceflight working group Scope To present a coherent strategy for organizing non-fiction information relating to Space. Also to direct the development of Portal:Space, from an organizational and stylistic point of view. The project is also responsible for the Space Collaboration of the Week. Mission Statement Striving for accessible knowledge regarding anything Space related Overall Strategy A single, coherent plan must be drawn up to encompass the categorization and style with which to present the related information. A single project page, representing a single Portal, must be decided upon to be the master planning home for the overall topic of Space. Sub-Portals will be developed to handle specific topics, and Sub-Portals as needed to make the navigation of all information available an easy and painless task for the least familiar peruser. Goals Create a standard layout and organize infortmation in Space-related Portals Categorize each page with a Space connection Add WikiProject tag: {{WPSpace}} -- mark appropriate related subject with "=yes" Develop concise outline of proposed additions to Portal:Space Members Add your name to the list here. Aaaf-wiki (talk) Ageekgal (Talk) (Contribs) Ageekgal (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Ajackl (talk) Alastor Moody (Talk) + (Contribs) + (Userboxes) 07:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ArielGold (talk) Bender_razz (talk) BestGuyEver --BestGuyEver (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)I will work on Space Launches and the History of Humans in Space Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Whatever needs to be done Bmader (talk) bstockuskuykkuykiuykuykuy (talk) Carbon Rodney(Talk but be nasty) 14:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Coolgyingman (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Chizero (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Cremepuff222 (talk) Dan Tromedlov (talk)-In the hope of expanding the known history and facts of Space DanielWent (talk) Masters degree in Astrophysics and member of the Cassini magnetometer science team. DJBarney24 (talk) DNJH (talk) 17 December 2008; Engineer. Commercial satellites Drew2794 (talk) I have an interest in the new Ares 1-X project. E_dog95 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC) - At the moment I'll be working in Category:Exploration of the Moon EarthCom1000 (talk) Love space. Ecualegacy (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Eisenmond (talk) - 22 February 2007 Exodio (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Extra999 (talk) + (contribs) Fact-of-the-matter (talk) Good at research General Eisenhower (talk) I will expand Wikipedia's knowledge of Space. Gr8opinionater (talk) GrampaScience (talk) greg (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Military uses of space GW_Simulations|GW_Simulations (talk) Hydrogen Iodide (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Indoles (talk) James xeno (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)(UTC) Jet123 (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Jon Holly (Talk) Jonathansuh (Talk) JoshuaKuo (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Kasos_fr (Talk) - interested in satellites Ken Tholke (talk) My crib provided no flame-retardent material, just an Emergency Abort button ElectronKid (Talk) LanceBarber (Talk)18:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC) - US space wings, satellites, manned projects, launch and tech articles Leobold1 (Talk) Mattkenn3 (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Mike Peel (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC) - Mainly astronomy-related articles. Mlm42 (Talk) 14:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Mrld (talk 00:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Needamedic (talk Nick Mks (talk Ninney - My great ways to contribute would be by making minor edits/corrections to articles (e.g., typos, fixing links, adding references to new secondary sources) Oyo321 (talk) Try to work on the Space Race Pax85 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Petebutt (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Pico del Teide (talk) interested in space exploration Pious7TalkContribs 20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC) pocketpencil (talk) PoizonMyst (talk) Pookeo9 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Purz12 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Ravedave (Adopt a State) 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC) - Spacecraft (specifically MRO and adding spacecraft infoboxes) (talk) Redstarsldr (talk) -go space race Rdwoodneo (talk) Has some understanding of astrochemistry to bring forward. Ricardo12458 (talk) Sai2020 (talk) Sdsds (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Sean (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Sennheiser (talk) Shojo (talk) - interested in space flights Simcen (talk) 18 May 2009, Aerospace Engineer Skeletor 0 (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Spiral5800 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Johns Hopkins University Student/Researcher, JHU Applied Physics Laboratory (the East Coast equivalent of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory) alumnus, and science enthusiast (if it wasn't already apparent.) 09:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Staka (talk) Sushant gupta (talk)- Only portal (space portal) maintainance! Syntheticalconnections (talk)(my contribs) 00:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (I've been working on extrasolar planet articles) Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) Tennispro45 (talk) Future cosmologist and deeply intersted in improving the quality of our space articles to satisfy people looking to expand their knowledge. Terry0051 (talk) ...researching topics in history of astronomy tham153 retired professor of astronomy and planetarium director, worked on the Apollo Project and did other space related work Thor Dockweiler (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC); astronomer. Tommy (Talk/Contribs) The Bushranger (talk) Miguel Cervantes (talk) Torquemada082 (talk) visual representations of what you think you remember.LOTS of visual representations. Are you bored? :x tpheiska (talk) Tzeentch42 (talk) Uttexas (talk) siafu (talk) Vsst (talk) Vuerqex (talk) VX (talk) WingedSkiCap(talk) Wolfkeeper(talk) Wwheaton (talk) Zuzzerack (talk) Gniniv (talk) crkey (talk) Skitahoe12 (talk) « CA » What that? Yiosie2356 (Talk) Members of all Space WikiProjects Member lists for other Space-related projects Templates Project banner Add WikiProject tag: {{WPSpace}} -- mark appropriate related subject with "=yes" Userbox I made a WikiProject Space userbox for anyone to use. Use the code {{User Wikiproject Space}} to create: This user is a member of WikiProject Space. Articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Popular pages Categories and subpages List of all subpages of this page. Category:Space Category:WikiProject Space To do Requests for input See our To do list. Please wikify CIMSS. Royalbroil 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I think that the article ESA should be graded higher than C. Also I've done some work in the past on ESRO but have truble improving the article. Help would be appreciated. Thanks. --U5K0 (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC) The space exploration section in the 2000's article needs to be summarized by an expert in this field. Any volunteers? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Space WikiProjects Project Active Members Assess Active Astronomy 139 (Unverified) Yes Yes Constellations (TF) 3 No No Eclipses 3 No Yes Astronomical objects 91 (Unverified) Yes Yes Solar System 65 (Unverified) Yes Yes Jupiter (TF) 3 No No Mars 5 Yes No Moon 10 Yes No Astronomy, Solar System and Astronomical objects member numbers require verifying, other member counts and activity statuses are correct as of 25 March 2011. WikiProjects - Directory of Space-related WikiProjects Members - Complete member lists of all Astronomy-related WikiProjects Related sisterprojects WikiProject NASA (Wikisource) Space portals Here are some Space-related portals: Astronomy Star Spaceflight Space Solar System Mars (Portals list) Article assessment WikiProject article quality grading scheme Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example  FA  The article has attained featured article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. L'incoronazione di Poppea (as of August 2010)  A  The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer review may help. 102nd Intelligence Wing (as of March 2010)  GA  The article has attained good article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Usain Bolt (as of November 2009)  B  The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either <ref> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. KV55 (as of November 2009)  C  The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. Architecture of Sweden (as of May 2009)  Start  An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. Real analysis (as of November 2006)  Stub  A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. Geodia gibberosa (as of July 2009)  FL  The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process. Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) (as of February 2009)  List  Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of aikidoka (as of June 2007) Tools Main tool page: toolserver.org Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references Checklinks - Edit and repair external links Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links. Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles. External watchlist Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Space Directory of WikiProjects   WikiProject Council   Guide to WikiProjects