Author Topic: NSF Wikipedia Article rewrite, requesting Feedback (Read 16347 times)

Harry Young · « **on:** 08/07/2021 02:03 pm »

Hello Here
as some of you may know, early last month I pledged on Discord to rewrite the NSF Wikipedia Article. After a few delays that is basically done, but I'd like to have it proofread by a few members of the community, particularly if you have been around a bit longer. It's a 5-7 minute read. Feedback here via reply or via DM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hendrikharry/NASASpaceFlight

Stan-1967 · « **Reply #1 on:** 08/07/2021 02:21 pm »

I think the coverage of the F9 reuse development missions, specifically to the crowdsourced video reconstruction, as well as discussions on accident investigation of CRS2 and AMOS-9 led to very popular support and growth.

Harry Young · « **Reply #2 on:** 08/07/2021 03:08 pm »

I've added a mention on the F9 Landing tests as well as Commercial Crew and Cargo. For more, I'd have to show a sufficient impact in growth and/or perception/credibility, which I don't see the material for.

saimoncis · « **Reply #3 on:** 08/07/2021 04:10 pm »

I think that must be cited the enormous boost in discussions that originated from the DIRECT proposal in the end of the 2000's.

leovinus · « **Reply #4 on:** 08/07/2021 07:42 pm »

Quote from: Harry Young on 08/07/2021 02:03 pm

Hello Here
as some of you may know, early last month I pledged on Discord to rewrite the NSF Wikipedia Article. After a few delays that is basically done, but I'd like to have it proofread by a few members of the community, particularly if you have been around a bit longer. It's a 5-7 minute read. Feedback here via reply or via DM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hendrikharry/NASASpaceFlight

That seems like a worthwhile endeavor. While I am still digesting my first coffee, here are some constructive thoughts. Just my 2pc.

First of all, make sure to ask Chris B what he wants to see

Your text is very heavy on the current streaming from Boca Chica/Starbase and other locations. This is a new thing and, e.g. two years, your proposed rewrite would not have looked like this at all. The site history is much longer which is why you requested some feedback.

Personally, I come to the site to read the forum discussion, the background articles, and the occasional stream is a delightful bonus. As such, I would love to see more emphasis on the journalistic and textual content on the site, the Shuttle articles, the DIRECT effort, forum and community efforts to pitch in photos, insights, experience and advice. Almost like a space university.

While the video restoration was a great example, I see no mention of L2, DIRECT.

No mention of the deep space industry experience of many forum members.

No links to Russian, Chinese, new smallsat operators, intelligence and historical sections.

IMHO, a Wiki needs pointers to sources not just a description. This being the Internet and hyperlinks are old news these days, please use many pointers to previous efforts, discussions, topics, etc etc etc.

Needs more highlights of articles like the evolution of BFR, restoration, DIRECT. A few examples here.

Into the unknown: Voyager 1 begins interstellar space adventure
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/09/the-unknown-voyager-1-begins-interstellar-space-adventure/

DIRECT issue rebuttal over NASA analysis of Jupiter launch vehicle
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/direct-rebuttal-nasa-analysis-jupiter-launch-vehicle/

A DIRECT handover – Movement leaders feel their work is complete
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/10/direct-handover-movement-leaders-work-complete/

Sputnik at 60: Ambition ties first satellite to SpaceX’s BFR, Mars plans
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/sputnik-60-ambition-ties-spacexs-bfr-plans/

Shuttle Atlantis and MIR: The Realization of Program Goal
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/07/shuttle-atlantis-mir-realization-program-goal/

SpaceX conducts successful Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/01/spacex-crew-dragon-in-flight-abort-test/

SpaceX Starship: The Continued Evolution of the Big Falcon Rocket
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/10/the-continued-evolution-of-the-big-falcon-rocket/

SLS engineering tests to accompany pre-launch checkouts for Artemis 1
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=SLS

Harry Young · « **Reply #5 on:** 08/07/2021 08:58 pm »

Chris has been on board from the beginning

L2 is referenced to the furthest extend possible without it being considered an ad. And that in general is the limiting factor.

In encyclopedic Writing you tell the story of the subject. If the subject is a storyteller, you must select which telling of stories had a significant impact on the story of the storyteller. If you start talking about all the stories told, you end up being either a linklist or an ad/selfserving resume. Hence I limited all of your remarks to what is in the header section where it indicates the cite is US-centric but covers international and private spaceflight as well.

That being said, I think a line or 2 about the community that has been culrtivated might be wise. will look at that after I had some sleep. I will also look at DIRECT since that does ring a bell and see if that is a story worth mentioning.

gongora · « **Reply #6 on:** 08/07/2021 09:10 pm »

I need to spend more time going through it, but a few things I noticed yesterday:
- Maybe just say the forum is moderated instead of "heavily moderated to avoid similar experiences as with space.com"
- I would say less about sources of revenue
- Don't be too detailed. In particular don't put a specific day and time for NSF Live. Details like that are always subject to change. Maybe just say it covers current topics in spaceflight, it may not even mention the current week's events if there is a special guest.

Coastal Ron · « **Reply #7 on:** 08/07/2021 09:46 pm »

As others have mentioned, what I see as the true strength of NSF is the moderated discussion boards.

I've been posted on other space related websites that don't have moderation, and they are like the Wild West. NSF has succeeded to a great degree in using the threat of moderation to keep posters from going too far off topic, and if they don't listen then moderators just lop off the off topic content.

I've had my own content removed, and sometimes I disagreed that it was off topic, but these are VOLUNTEER moderators, which is very important to point out. So there are people in the world that are volunteering to literally keep the quality of NSF discussions as high as possible without moderating opinions. Tricky to do, but NSF has succeeded I think. It is the reason why NSF has become pretty much the sole place I come to for news and discussion about what is going on with space related stuff.

So please add to the Wikipedia entry about the moderated discussion threads, and how they are only moderated for decorum (people should not be personal in their comments) and whether they are on topic. Oh, and the moderators are volunteers, as well as contributors.

Harry Young · « **Reply #8 on:** 08/08/2021 02:16 am »

I have installed two new headers for Journalistic focus and style and inner organization. those are very much work in progress but I think under those umbrellas, the topics that you feel need further coverage can best be catered for. Will take me a bit to flesh those out.

in the process I decided to give fincances a subheader. It needs to be there, but having it grouped together might make it seem a little less present.

StarshipSLS · « **Reply #9 on:** 08/08/2021 02:48 am »

Looks great to me! You can find me on Wikipedia with the same username.

Lar · « **Reply #10 on:** 08/08/2021 04:58 am »

Thanks for taking this on. What was your plan for making changes to the actual article? rather than a wholesale replacement, it may be better to edit the existing article and add a section at a time so each revision shows part of the growth.

Have you engaged on the talk page of the actual article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NASASpaceFlight.com

That might be prudent.

One thing I would caution about is avoiding the appearance of promotion. It's also important to have sources for the things said. There will be people watching the article that are not participants here, and notability and reliable sourcing may be raised by them to resist the changes.

(I am a Wikipedia admininstrator)

D_Dom · « **Reply #11 on:** 08/08/2021 03:19 pm »

Outstanding work! Just a quick question; First paragraph, third sentence. Should this be "have" instead of has?

ulm_atms · « **Reply #12 on:** 08/08/2021 03:39 pm »

Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/07/2021 09:46 pm

As others have mentioned, what I see as the true strength of NSF is the moderated discussion boards.

I've been posted on other space related websites that don't have moderation, and they are like the Wild West. NSF has succeeded to a great degree in using the threat of moderation to keep posters from going too far off topic, and if they don't listen then moderators just lop off the off topic content.

I've had my own content removed, and sometimes I disagreed that it was off topic, but these are VOLUNTEER moderators, which is very important to point out. So there are people in the world that are volunteering to literally keep the quality of NSF discussions as high as possible without moderating opinions. Tricky to do, but NSF has succeeded I think. It is the reason why NSF has become pretty much the sole place I come to for news and discussion about what is going on with space related stuff.

So please add to the Wikipedia entry about the moderated discussion threads, and how they are only moderated for decorum (people should not be personal in their comments) and whether they are on topic. Oh, and the moderators are volunteers, as well as contributors.

I can only hit "Like" once but I would hit it about 1 million times for this comment.

The moderation is what makes this site so great. Any other site I have read has personal feelings and politics take over the entire thread until the thread is unreadable and uninteresting. Other people can't contribute to the conversation due to all that. I have never paid money to a "forum" ever. NSF was the first and over the years NFS has yet to even come close to letting me down in their moderation department.

Civil conversation is hard to find on the internet now a days. Thank you ChrisB and all the moderators that keep this forum sane...I am more appreciative then I have words for.

EDIT: Need more coffee before I hit the post button.....

Harry Young · « **Reply #13 on:** 08/10/2021 06:57 pm »

I have expanded the forum interaction and Team a bit. there might be more, but given my focus in usage lies outside this forum, I might not be the best person to write about that. DIRECT is still on the todo list.

webdan · « **Reply #14 on:** 08/10/2021 07:29 pm »

The "f" in NASASpaceflight should be capitalized everywhere:
NASASpaceFlight

Space.com should have a capital "S"

TYPOS:
--------
Team and Recruitment:
photojurnalist

Under Finances:
merchendise
handeled
seperate

Just a quick run, too many years of proofing text & writing code.

EDIT: I put the capital F in here (top) because, I see it as a "brand". Otherwise, it is just a space flight. And the site's acronym is not NS

Just my $0.02.

EDIT II:

Typos: Addirtionaly, oppurtunities

Capitalization/structure:
…forum as an alternative to space.com. shuttlespaceflight.com was briefly considered…

Since the YouTube channel has really picked up, throw in some key screenshots while you’re at it?

Harry Young · « **Reply #15 on:** 08/10/2021 07:34 pm »

regarding the capital F, that's not how the site itself spells it in the full name, it is a heritage from the old header image. will move to relocate. Will tackle the other typos in 30 mins, thanks for that

rubicondsrv · « **Reply #16 on:** 08/12/2021 07:29 pm »

I don't think I would mention the problems at space.com, it adds nothing of value, and looks petty

Harry Young · « **Reply #17 on:** 08/17/2021 08:11 pm »

I removed the jab against space.com. I also added a section about DIRECT as promised.

Quote from: webdan on 08/10/2021 07:29 pm

Since the YouTube channel has really picked up, throw in some key screenshots while you’re at it?

I will not be able to do that as that would rightfully infringe into material that is not free and would not yield sufficient rationale for it to be included.

Harry Young · « **Reply #18 on:** 08/22/2021 02:11 am »

I've done a bit more cleanup and I think I have sourced every major claim I can source. If I don't see any more claims to the contrary, I think this is ready to replace the current article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hendrikharry/NASASpaceFlight

Perchlorate · « **Reply #19 on:** 08/22/2021 03:40 am »

First, I offer praise and thanks for this solid, substantial effort.

I'd like to add a few more minor typo corrections:

"...is a news website and forum, which launched in 2005, covering crewed and...": First comma should be deleted.

"SpaceXs Starbase facility. NSF is owned..." Add the apostrophe: SpaceX's or maybe even SpaceX'

"NSF is owned and operated by managing editor Chris Bergin, and content...": Comma is not needed.

"...as briefly considered as a site name, but passed given the foreseeable retirement...": Suggest "passed over," or "not selected," or something (just "passed" seems a little awkward). And I think a comma IS needed after the verb in this case: "..., but not selected, given the foreseeable retirement..."

"...May 6 2004, however, the site in its...": Most folks would write the date "May 6, 2004". Also, the punctuation with "however" in this case should be "2004; however, the site in its..."

I would add the comma in "This included stories about Virgin Galactic and SpaceX, including stories..."

Change to "by their confirming the Ares I rollercoaster..."

"Whom" if it's a person, "which" if it's a thing: "Via the forum, a number of professional and amateur rocket engineers, some of whom were tasked..."

Recommend adding a comma and "was": "...concepts, and with some changes was adopted as the Space Launch System."

Add the apostrophe: "...NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo programs, the SLS Rocket and what..."

Another apostrophe: "John Galloway to produce content for Galloway's Twitch channel."

And another: "...at SpaceX's South Texas launch site..." or "at SpaceX' South Texas launch site"

Yet another: "Beginning in 2020 on the eve of the channel's first anniversary..."

"Included" for past tense, and suggest standardizing the date format.: "These included rollout and lift of Starship and the Superheavy Booster onto the launch mount, cryogenic proof tests, static fires, hops and launches. This way, they gained attention again when they provided complete footage of the Starship SN4 failure on ~~29 May 2020~~ May 29, 2020."

Another apostrophe: "...to track SpaceX's Recovery Fleet) as well as multiple locations..."

Spelling on "throughout." "...updated throughout the campaign, providing updates..." seemed a little awkward with 2 uses of "update" so close together. I suggested one of many possible alternate wordings: "For ongoing mission events like launches for instance, an article is updated throughout the campaign, with fresh information as it unfolds, including delays and their causes."

Fix several misspellings in this (threads, through, numerous): "... play-by-play reporting threads for special events. The forum itself, through a civil tone of discussion and firm but fair implementation of their rules by the moderators, has attracted numerous members..."

Member is singular, so you need the singular possessive pronoun "his/her" instead of the plural "their": "Each team member has his/her primary area of focus, but also ..." Of course, gender pronouns have become their own issue these days, but if you're going to use standard English, this would be the right way.

"Handled," not "handeled": "The video production is handled by a team of video editors and is done on a professional basis. Livestream production and related developments are handled by John Galloway and Michael Baylor."