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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Comparison of orbital launch systems[edit]

Comparison of orbital launch systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — JFG talk 03:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been stable for a couple years, it is well-maintained to the point of having reached completeness. Inclusion criteria are well-defined, and regular contributors ensure timely updates, as well-sourced news develop. It can be an effective first-stop resource for readers wishing to check current and future offerings in the booming space launch market. In short, it's high time this list got a lil' star. — JFG talk 03:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start immediately by noting that we should write a longer and more explanatory introduction. Can the reviewers look at the rest of the page while I gather a few "regulars" to think of what we should add in the intro? — JFG talk 03:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08[edit]

Will add more later Kees08 (Talk) 03:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Quick note: it has been decided to keep currently-available rockets with rockets under development, to allow for easier comparison of what is "on the market" today. Decisions to launch are made years ahead, so that studying whether to launch a future spacecraft on a future rocket is a totally reasonable pursuit. Conversely, retired rockets were split off into their own table, because direct comparisons would have no practical value. I think we should leave things that way, but I'm prepared to change my mind if a majority of other editors disagree. — JFG talk 04:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough for now. It may address N2e's accessibility concerns as well. Kees08 (Talk) 05:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Progress on current and upcoming rockets

I made some more progress. First, take note that everything I'm doing is for the table of current and upcoming rockets. Once that's settled, I'll request help to bring the retired rockets up to scratch.

Looking forward to your next round of feedback. — JFG talk 17:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for failure/success ratio. If not for every launch system, than for those that made more than [place number here] launches.Igor Krein (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa[edit]

  1. An image in the WP:LEAD would be nice.
  2. The first paragraph should be a hatnote, rather than a paragraph.
  3. The second paragraph is so broken up with explanatory footnotes that it impedes readability.
  4. The WP:LEAD is very scant for such a long list.
  5. Is there any particular reason to have the table of contents to the right?
  6. All abbreviations used in the tables should use the ((abbr)) template so the reader doesn't have to scroll all the way to the top to find out what an abbreviation means. It would also help those using screen readers quite a bit.
  7. Where color is used to convey information, symbols also need to be used per WP:ACCESS.
  8. Keep the number of empty cells to a minimum. The use of TBA is good, as it tells the reader the nature of the missing information (it will be added at a later date, but right now it is not available – other examples might be that a cell is not applicable for the entry in question, that the value is known but not available to the public if it for instance is kept secret, or that the value is unknown to anyone).
  9. The sourcing is either poor or unclear. There are very many cells that contain values that should be sourced, but no reference.
  10. The LEO payload cell for Simorgh only contains a reference, no value.
  11. Rocket variants are not distinguished; i.e., the Atlas V series is only counted once for all its configurations 401–431, 501–551, 552, and N22. – "i.e." should be "e.g." (unless that's the only example).
  12. The "Launch systems by country" graphic would be better as a table.
  13. The external links listed here need to be fixed.

TompaDompa (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JFG these comments appear to have remained unaddressed (at least unanswered) for two-and-a-half weeks, are you intending to respond to/resolve them? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Had no time to work on this. Will definitely continue the process asap. — JFG talk 11:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JFG no stress, was just checking it was active. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JFG it's been a few weeks now, are you going to address/respond to these comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The main issue is that there is a lot of data in the table of retired rockets that is badly sourced because the source URLs were changed all across the site. It will be a lot of work to update them all. I was hoping that some other rocketry "regulars" could help. I also need to write a new lede section. Expecting to do this by the end of the month. — JFG talk 22:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination appears to have stalled, with little or no interest reviewing it. I'd suggest that unless significant progress is made in the next week, this will be archived with no prejudice for a renomination once existing issues have been resolved. Let's give it until 1 November. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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