Wikipedia:Peer review/European Space Agency/archive1
European Space Agency[edit]
ESA - interesting and informative. I've started to improve this article and actually I think it really has improved, however it could be even better! I urge all Europeans to help bring this article to FA-niveau. Themanwithoutapast 23:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good but not near FA status yet, I think. I'm missing information (a time frame?) on launches, and disasters/crashes (I believe there are a few!). Also, aren't there any books on the ESA? Some references would add a lot to the article. -- Cugel 14:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Added some references - regarding the timeframe, do you mean a more detailed history section or a list of launches - a list wouldn't really add to the article. Themanwithoutapast 21:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Need references. External links should be moved to external link section from main body and linked with notes. Too many lists, too little content, it should at least double in size before it is comprehensive enough for FAC. For example, the 'Current projects' should be transformed from bullets to paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- External links should be moved to external link section from main body and linked with notes are you referring to wikifootnotes? As far as I know they are not required in the wikipedia FA criterias. As to the content issue - I think now it is quite detailed, or do you still feel it's to short? Themanwithoutapast 00:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good but not near FA status yet, I think. I'm missing information (a time frame?) on launches, and disasters/crashes (I believe there are a few!). Also, aren't there any books on the ESA? Some references would add a lot to the article. -- Cugel 14:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it looks good. There's perhaps a little too much emphasis on future space exploration plans, which can (and often do) evaporate depending on funding changes. But that could be counter-balanced with more history details, &c. — RJH 15:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- One thing that stuck out at me is the comparison between the ESA and NASA in the Budget section. It sounds partially like an excuse for the ESA and partially like a NASA-bashing exercise, neither of which is appropriate. There's good content there, and some comparison should undoubtedly be made, but I think it should be reworded. Oh yeah, it also misses an important point — ESA is only a space agency where NASA is an aerospace agency that also spends lots on atmospheric R&D type stuff. -Lommer | talk 01:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the budget section was certainly not intended as to "bash NASA". Could you add some more details on the POV-argument of the budget section? And you are right, ESA is merely a space agency, however research in aeronautics is carried through by the national space agencies such as DLR, CNES and above all the majoritly national owned EADS corporation. As with regard to NASA, although having a branch of aeronautics, it has always had its major emphasis on space and nearly all of its budget is spent for space-related activities. Themanwithoutapast 21:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- ad "space agency" vs. "aerospace agency" -> I've just checked the budget figures of NASA and discovered that for 2005 only 900 million are allocated to Aeronautics out of the 16 billion overall budget. This means that 94 % of NASA's funds are used for space-related activity, therefore this distinction between ESA and NASA appears less important - I will nevertheless add a note on this matter in the article. Themanwithoutapast 14:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- One thing that stuck out at me is the comparison between the ESA and NASA in the Budget section. It sounds partially like an excuse for the ESA and partially like a NASA-bashing exercise, neither of which is appropriate. There's good content there, and some comparison should undoubtedly be made, but I think it should be reworded. Oh yeah, it also misses an important point — ESA is only a space agency where NASA is an aerospace agency that also spends lots on atmospheric R&D type stuff. -Lommer | talk 01:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)