Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Race/archive2

Space Race

Very complete take on an important chpater of the 1960s and 1970s. DAVODD 07:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Overall, very good. One comment, though, the References section uses a different format than the norm (as shown in Cite your sources and used in Template:Book reference) that doesn't include the publishers' names. Other than that, Support. slambo 11:21, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This VERY GOOD article was nominated just last month as FAC, and narrowly lost out due to more than one reviewer noting there was little or no discussion of the broader implications and results of the "race". I had done a lot of the work responding to other (at the time glaring) problems in the article, but stopped short (for the time being) of those last fixes. A question was also raised as to the thoroughness of the "deaths" section. Sfahey 16:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object, for the same reasons the last nomination failed. The article is incomplete - the sections on the economic, technological and political consequences of the space race are either brief or nonexisitng. The fact that the article does a superb job in discussing the history of the space race is not enough for me. And even the history is still buggy - comapring 1990s Russian Aviation and Space Agency to 1958 NASA would be rather funny - if this wasn't a supposedly reliable encylopedic article. See also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations#Space race for the previous nomination objections. Until they are resolved, this article cannot be featured. Note: I could support the article if it would be a 'History of the space race' subsection of some other, major article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There is a lot of great stuff in here, but some work seems necessary. In addition to Piotr's remarks: 1) Until the "Funding" section (which could be better named), the story is chronological, but after that there are some "intermezzi", which kind of disturb the storyline, even though it is still mostly chronological. I would think it is best to keep the first part purely chronological, and put the summarizing or general stuff at the end. Maybe this means just moving a few sections. 2) "The most definitive "end" to the Space Race might be considered to be the joint Soviet-American Apollo-Soyuz mission of 1975." - a bit more on this is needed. 3) Some sections are ridiculously short. "Notable scientists" only mentions two persons by name, and "The legacy of the Space Race" consists of a single sentence. 4) I think the "Recent developments" and "Additional "space races"" sections do not belong in this article. They might belong in a space race (lower case) article, or else in the history of space travel or so. Jeronimo 20:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Despite what others said, I think it is good enough.. Squash 09:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Jeronimo's advice is sound and very well taken, but I'm confident that the active editors will be able to resolve the said objections-- all of which are pretty minor, in time for feature, so I'll vote to support now. 172 02:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object, for the record. I agree with Sfahey, Piotrus, and Jeronimo. Just failed a month ago for the reason that it is not close to comprehensive on its subject. - Taxman 15:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)