Wikipedia:Peer review/Hubble Space Telescope/archive1
I've just completed a reworking of this article, having previously nominated it for removal from featured status. I'd like to make it an FAC but it's grown into a huge beast of a thing at 48K and I thought I'd better check here first for any suggested improvement (like trimming massively perhaps :)) before exposing it to the harsh scrutiny of FAC. Worldtraveller 14:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yep - looks like it is at the director's cut stage. :) Time to make some painful choices. Here are my suggestions:
- Since this article is very heavy on history, I suggest the creation of a history of the Hubble Space Telescope article. Everything in the ==Conception, design and aims== section except for the ===Instruments=== subsection would be moved along with the ==Flawed mirror== and ==Servicing missions and new instruments== sections. A long summary of all that would be placed in a ==History== section in this article. If you decide you want to do that, then I volunteer to create the abridged summary and a lead section for the resulting 'history of' article. See Yosemite National Park#History and history of the Yosemite area to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
- This will allow for expansion of the other parts of the article, such as the newly promoted ==Instruments== and other sections that talk about HST itself and what it has done.
- Quickly Explain jargon like angular resolution and spherical aberration.
- Inline cites are needed in the article (per FAC criteria). The Inote system is easiest to use, IMO. See history of the Grand Canyon area for an example in action.
It will be difficult to gage what is missing until the detailed history gets put into its own article and an adequately large summary of that is left here. My first impression is that more detail is needed on the instruments and data results. A section devoted to the impact HST has had on astronomy and the resulting impact on the public also seems to be in order, IMO (==Outreach activities== would likely be a subsection of that). --mav 16:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There is the possibility of moving some of the information to a History of space telescopes page or alternatively a space telescopes section on the History of telescopes page. Some of the information comparing and contrasting Hubble with proposed future space telescopes could be moved here too... or is it silly to mention future proposals into a "history" page? :o/ CheekyMonkey 19:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- A very good article. I see no reason to shorten it, I like my FAs long :> I'd support it on FA today. One note: it was missing a category. When working on any article, make sure it is categorised. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the comments, all - I have to say I am rather torn about whether to split it, even more so with contrasting points of view given here. I think for the moment I'll work on addressing the other comments, and consider the splitting issue after that. I'm edging towards splitting it, but am easily swayed by comments against :)
- I've tried to explain the jargon briefly, hope that looks OK now. Will now see about expanding the results bit, I agree that needs work. I have briefly discussed the impact on astronomy but could probably expand that as well. In terms of the impact on the public, as an 'insider' I may not be best placed to write about it, so any input from the bona-fide general public would be great there! Worldtraveller 10:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really in favor of splitting it, but on the other hand it is monumental in size :) Print out a copy and do a good copy edit to cut out any extraneous text, for example I think the sections on the quest for funding and the flawed mirror could be pruned. The future space telescopes section could be more a summary since there is a decent article on the replacement James Webb Space Telescope and a comparison of the two could potentially be moved there.--nixie 00:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Right, sorry to have not been active on this article for a week or so, I burned myself out with the initial draft and needed a few days off to recover :) I have just been through and trimmed the future section quite a lot, but also expanded the impact and discoveries sections, and the article is 50K at the moment. I am not sure I can see what other extraneous text could be cut, but am more than happy for others to get stuck in and carve bits off. It may be long, but my own view is that it's in lots of bite-sized chunks and is all quite easily digestible. Any other thoughts on the length issue? Thanks! Worldtraveller 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)