Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ISS spacewalks - Wikipedia

• Featured lists do not start: This is a list of... anymore. Try for an engaging lead that summarizes the topic instead.
  • One of the issues that got the list de-listed, was that it didn't follow the MOS for bolding the title in the first sentence. I too, think that putting the title in the first sentence is pretty... unhelpful, but it was one of the reasons that the list was taken off of FL status, ("Fails MOS on WP:BOLDTITLE,") because it used to have a lead sentence that did not say "list of ISS spacewalks". So my question is, how can this list satisfy both requirements? Does the title need to be renamed? It seems there is some conflict between the MOS WP:LS, the naming conventions for articles, and the requirements for FLs. I'd appreciate any suggestions that could satisfy all three issues. Ariel♥Gold 13:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Things have changed a lot around the Featured List process and their formats; the relaxing of bolding requirements is one of those changes. Look at recently promoted lists for examples and note that most do not bold anything or even repeat the title. I promise you that no regular FLC reviewer will oppose on for not having a bolded lead or the repetition of the page title; in fact, they would be more likely to oppose if you didn't unbold the text and take out the verbatim title from the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, since, if you check the reason for de-listing, that was one of the reasons cited. And I happily removed the bold title completely. :) Ariel♥Gold 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did some investigation, and I discovered what was wrong. The reviewer was not saying that there had to be something in bold, they were saying that there was a wikilink in the bold text, which is an MOS breach. So there was never a need to bold something in the first place :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "EVA" Spell out what this means on its first appearance.
  • • Done.
• "A total of 37"-->Thiry-seven...
  • • Done.
• "there have been a total of 114 spacewalks"
  • • Done.
• "86 of these EVAs have been from the station, totaling 523 hours, 30 minutes." Spell out numbers when they start sentences. "523 hours, 30 minutes" of what?
  • I don't understand. Hours and minutes are.... time. Obviously. What else would it be? What are you saying I need to change here? Ariel♥Gold 13:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just reworded things, not really knowing what you meant needed changing. If that's not what you meant, please clarify. :) Ariel♥Gold 13:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you did was perfect :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "28 assembly EVAs have been performed from a shuttle, 61 from the Quest Joint Airlock, and 25 from the Pirs docking compartment." There are two MOSNUM guidelines in play here: Spell out numbers when they start a sentence, and be consistent when writing comparative quantities. Either write them all out: "Twenty-eight assembly EVAs have been performed from a shuttle, sixty-one from the Quest Joint Airlock, and twenty-five from the Pirs docking compartment.", or start the sentence with a different word.
  • • Done.
• Perhaps provide examples of notable spacewalks?
  • • Done. Mentioned first and longest EVAs in opening section.
• "six space agencies and 16 countries"-->six space agencies and sixteen countries.
  • • Done.
• The image caption is not a complete sentence, do not put a period at the end.
  • • Reworded caption.
• "Retrieved a TV camera" Write out "television".
  • • Done.
• "channels 2-3" en dash.
  • Explain what this is supposed to mean, please? Ariel♥Gold 13:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• About five of the references have linked dates. Make all of them unlinked, please. While we're on the subject of dates, the linking of dates (full dates, years, etc.) is now deprecated. I unlinked them in this article for you, but please keep that in mind.
  • • Noted, done, and thank you VERY much for delinking the dates. That would have been a major undertaking for me since I don't have any automated tools to do that sort of work with. Thanks!
• Mission 42 needs its time corrected.
  • • Done.
• "1998-1999" En dash. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I do not understand what that means. The rest that I don't have questions on, I'll fix. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 13:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have fixed both En-dashes for you :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you DJ! (Still don't know what that means, lol) but thank you! Alright, all issues addressed, if someone would take another look through to be sure I did not miss anything. Thank you all! Ariel♥Gold 16:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • En dashes are wider than hyphens. This is a hyphen: - and this is an en dash: –. En dashes are used to convey a sense of to or through. For example, in year ranges, you can write In the 1967–1969 recession instead of In the recession that occurred from 1967 to 1969. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that you've spelled out EVA, this sentence doesn't make sense: "crewmembers Susan J. Helms and James S. Voss conducted a full EVA" If spelled out that would be: crewmembers Susan J. Helms and James S. Voss conducted a full extra-vehicular activity", which sounds funny. Also, link extra-vehicular activity.
  • Link done. As to EVA use in sentences, it may appear strange, but that is the proper term as used by NASA, and the acronym is used as NASA uses it. NASA uses many things "oddly" to the layman, such as saying "nominal" instead of "normal". That is how they use the term in reports, press releases, documents, etc. ("The astronauts conducted a long 7 hour EVA") I guess every instance of "EVA" could be changed to "spacewalk", but since NASA uses the term EVA just as often (if not more often) it would seem to be strange that the article would not use the same term? For that specific sentence above, however, I did change it to "spacewalk". Ariel♥Gold 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a lot of overlinking of astronauts names. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for all names being linked, even if they conducted the previous spacewalk, is because many astronauts have repeated missions, and some performed EVAs over years. To link some, and not others, would appear inconsistent if they are mentioned years later. I realize it is overlinking, but if someone was looking up an EVA from a mission in 2007, where an astronaut happened to be making his 5th EVA, and his name was only linked upon first mention in 2000, they would have to scroll through the whole list to find his first EVA to be able to click on his name. If you can think of a solution that would assist readers, I'm happy to change that. What about linking first mention of each astronaut for each mission/expedition, even if previously linked years before? Ariel♥Gold 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the only issue left that of the linking of names? One other question I have had in my own mind, also has to do with linking and overlinking. For instance, the parts of the station. While all are linked in first mention, some of the parts (trusses, airlocks, laboratories, modules, etc.) have work done years later, or are moved years later, and it would seem to me, that it would be helpful to link those as well, because I know from experience, that most people who refer to this list aren't reading it as an article, but are looking for a specific mission/task, and thus, if the station part isn't linked, they would also have to go search the whole list to find a link. The same could be said for the many acronyms used in the notes column. For instance, the Solar Alpha Rotary Joint, which is linked and fully spelled out on first mention, but then years later, causes some major issues and multiple EVAs are done to evaluate and inspect it, and it is simply referred to as SARJ. People coming to see those EVA notes, may not know what it means. Should things such as that be fully spelled out, and linked, once per mission? Ariel♥Gold 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a linking expert actually, ask User:Tony1 or put a question on WT:MOSLINK. This linking issue is not a deal-breaker, I'm still willing to support no matter what happens with the linking. I want to read through the article one last time; I will try to get to that tomorrow, I don't have time today. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, really, the MOS says to link the first mention, and to fully spell out acronyms on their first mention, but it doesn't really take situations like this into account. From a reader's standpoint, I would much rather have every astronaut's name linked, so that no matter which mission I'm looking at, I can click on the person's name. I would probably say the same thing for the acronyms or other linked items like modules, labs, etc., at least link and fully spell out once per mission. If that's the consensus, then I'll have a bit of work to do to get them all linked again, after I removed all the duplicate links earlier, hee hee. Ariel♥Gold 21:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally would not link the repeat names in the table, but MOSLINK say that you can (in a table), and I suppose that it does look neater visually. The lead doesn't seem to have repeat links, so there's no problem, I think. Tony (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Tony! I agree the visual aspect of the list is much nicer with them all linked, and I personally find it more helpful to have them linked as they are. I think I will repeat some of the module links for the trusses and other parts as well. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The notes for each EVA are the heart of each entry, but they are squeezed into a column that hinders the flow of text. I recommend moving the notes to a separate row. It will make the tables longer, but will enhance readability. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hrmm, interesting. I will look and see if I can get that to work on the list. Thank you Gadget! Ariel♥Gold 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay well, I tried that and the first line works, but when I paste the same changes into the other mission lines, it jacks up the entire table. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, tables aren't my strong suit, but I cannot get that format to work. User:ArielGold/Sandbox Gadget, (or anyone) if you can figure out what I need to do to fix it, feel free to edit that page. Ariel♥Gold 21:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done! Thanks for the suggestion, Gadget, it looks MUCH better now IMO! Ariel♥Gold 00:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]