Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry
Main pageDiscussionMembersAssessmentArticle alertsRecognized contentPortalNaming ConventionsTemplatesEditor of the Year
Shortcuts

Rocketry articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low Bottom NA ??? Total
FA 1 2 3
FL 1 1 2
FM 25 25
A 1 1
GA 2 2 4 3 1 12
B 6 14 12 29 1 10 72
C 12 43 42 47 6 32 182
Start 12 49 73 195 11 79 419
Stub 2 7 24 156 14 68 271
List 1 6 13 19 13 52
Category 227 227
Disambig 12 12
File 36 36
Portal 1 1
Project 12 12
Redirect 2 3 288 293
Template 147 147
Other 5 5
Assessed 36 122 173 452 34 753 202 1,772
Unassessed 458 458
Total 36 122 173 452 34 753 660 2,230

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Rocketry! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Rocketry related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. To assess an article, using the rating scheme described below, fill in the parameters on the {{WikiProject Rocketry}} banner on the article's talk page:

{{WikiProject Rocketry |class= |importance= }}

Instructions edit

Quality scale edit

The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.[under discussion] Space Shuttle
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches
 FM Pictures that have attained featured picture status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
More detailed criteria
A featured picture:
  1. Is of a high technical standard.
    • It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance.
    • It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. Examples of common technical problems can be found here.
    • Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements.
    • Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed.[1]
  2. Is of high resolution.
    • It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction. Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height; larger sizes are generally preferred. The size of animated images is judged less strictly, though larger is still preferred. Further information on image size can be found here.
      • Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration.
      • Note that vector graphics in SVG format omit any requirement for any pixel count.
      • Animations and video may be somewhat smaller.
  3. Is among Wikipedia's best work.
    • It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
    • It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative.
    • A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide.
    • commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia.
  4. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:File copyright tags.
  5. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
    • The image is used in one or more articles.[2] It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image.
    • A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value.[3]
  6. Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments.
  7. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English. A complete file description:
    • Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable.
    • Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other medium. Geotagging photographs of identifiable places is encouraged. This entails providing the coordinates of where the camera was when the medium was recorded to an appropriate degree of precision no less than ~10 km² (see Commons:Geocoding, or Template:Coord if the image is hosted on the English Wikipedia).
    • States the most relevant meta-detail (such as date, location, event, version, etc). It is suggested that additional relevant information that becomes known during the course of the nomination be subsequently included in the file description.
    • May include languages other than English but there must be an English version available that meets this criterion. The file name may be in a language other than English.
  8. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.
    • Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive.
    • Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction.
    • More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text.
    • Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
    • Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.
 The page contains a featured image, sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. File:STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Arrow (Israeli missile)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Black Arrow
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Falcon 9
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Kennedy Space Center
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Hermann Oberth
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Satellite Launch Vehicle
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of Long March launches
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Category:Individual rocket vehicles
Disambig Any disambiguation page falls under this class. The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. Military spacecraft
File Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. File:Apollo 11 launch.jpg
Portal Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. Portal:Rocketry
Project All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry
Redirect Any redirect falls under this class. The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles. Rocket science
Template Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. Template:US launch systems
NA Any non-article page that fits no other classification. The page contains no article content. Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified.

Importance scale edit

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to rocketry students.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

General edit

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. Kindergarten
 High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Factory Acts
 Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. 0.999...
 Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. G cell
 Bottom Subject is of the lowest level of relevance or significance to its field of study. International Cricket (video game)

People edit

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top People who made fundamental or very famous contributions to rocketry in general. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
 High People who made major or famous contributions within their field. Wernher von Braun
 Mid People who made important contributions to their fields and gained recognition by their peers. Günter Wendt
 Low Most people related to rocketry who meet the minimum notability guidelines. ?

Rockets edit

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Rockets used for first national orbital launches or other major firsts.
Rocket Families		 Saturn V
Atlas (rocket family)
 High Rockets used for first national spaceflight.
Human-rated rockets.
Super-heavy lift launch vehicles.		 RTV-G-4 Bumper
Soyuz-FG
Falcon Heavy
 Mid Rockets used for more than 10 orbital launches.
Sounding rockets & ballistic missiles used for more than 100 spaceflights.
Planned rockets that have not flown yet.		 Kosmos-3M
Black Brant
Vulcan Centaur
 Low Rockets used for 1–10 orbital launches.
Sounding rockets & ballistic missiles used for 1–100 spaceflights.		 Delta III
Rohini (rocket family)
 Bottom Sounding rockets & ballistic missiles incapable of reaching space.
Proposed/Canceled rockets which would have been capable of reaching space.		 UGM-133 Trident II
Aquarius (rocket)

Rocket engines edit

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Rocket engines used for the rockets with top importance. Rocketdyne F-1
 High Rocket engines used for the rockets with high importance. RD-107
 Mid Rocket engines used for the rockets with mid importance. Rutherford (rocket engine)
 Low Rocket engines used for the rockets with low importance. ?
 Bottom Rocket engines used for the rockets with bottom importance.
Rocket engines currently not used on any rockets.		 ?
J-2X

Rocket stages edit

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top No such importance is used for rocket stages, except the solid rocket boosters used for the rockets with top importance. Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster
 High Rocket stages used for the rockets with top importance.
Rocket stages used for multiple rockets.		 S-IC
 Mid Rocket stages used for the rockets with high importance. Common Booster Core
 Low Rocket stages used for the rockets with mid or low importance. ?
 Bottom Rocket stages used for the rockets with bottom importance.
Rocket stages currently not used on any rockets.
Proposed rocket stages		 ?
?

Spaceports edit

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top The spaceport article and major spaceports. Baikonur Cosmodrome
 High Orbital launch sites.
Landing sites or pads used for the rockets with top importance.		 Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39
Landing Zones 1 and 2
 Mid Orbital launch pads.
Landing sites or pads used for the rockets with high importance.		 Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A
?
 Low Suborbital spaceflight launch sites and pads.
Landing sites or pads used for the rockets with mid or low importance.		 Andøya Space Center
?
 Bottom Launch sites not used for spaceflight.
Proposed launch sites which would have been used for spaceflight.		 Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 1
Sutherland spaceport

Topics edit

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Topics of fundamental importance to rocketry. Rocket
 High Important topics of widespread interest in rocketry. Multistage rocket
 Mid Topics which may be taught to rocketry students but are not otherwise widely known. Range safety
 Low Specialist topics only of interest to a small field of rocket scientists. Oberth effect
 Bottom Fringe theories about rocketry. Pendulum rocket fallacy

Topic scale edit

This is a unique assessment scale used in this WikiProject. It attempts to categorise articles related to rocketry by topics. Although the possible topics are four, an article can be categorised into other topics as well.

Topic Criteria Example
Biography Any biography articles. Robert H. Goddard
Rocket Any articles that describe a rocket or a family of rockets. Falcon 9
Rocket engine Any articles that describe a rocket engine. Rocketdyne F-1
Spaceport Any articles that describe a spaceport, launch site, launch pad, etc. Baikonur Cosmodrome

Requesting an assessment edit

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. Please note that an importance rating may not be given in some cases if the reviewer is unfamiliar with the subject.

If you assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

Quality log edit

Rocketry articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

January 25, 2022 edit

Renamed edit

Reassessed edit

  • Agni-IV (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Algol (rocket stage) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to High-Class. (rev · t)
  • Amateur rocketry (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Aquarius (rocket) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Bottom-Class. (rev · t)
  • Ariane 6 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Ariane flight VA240 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Ariane flight VA242 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Ariane flight VA243 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Ariane flight VA244 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Ariane flight VA248 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Astra (aerospace) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Athena (rocket family) (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from High-Class to Top-Class. (rev · t)
  • Athena I (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Athena II (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Atlas-Centaur (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Top-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Beresheet (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 13 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 40 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Centaur (rocket stage) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • Deep Space Climate Observatory (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta (rocket family) (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Mid-Class to Top-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta 0100 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta 3000 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta 4000 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta 5000 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta C (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta D (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta G (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta J (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta M (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Delta N (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Earth Departure Stage (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Bottom-Class. (rev · t)
  • Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Ensemble de Lancement Soyouz (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
  • ExPace (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Falcon 1 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Falcon 9 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • Falcon 9 B1046 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Falcon 9 Block 5 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Falcon 9 Full Thrust (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Falcon 9 first-stage landing tests (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Falcon Heavy test flight (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • G. Harry Stine (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • General Dynamics Nexus (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Green Propellant Infusion Mission (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • H-I (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • H-II (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • H-IIA (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Hwasong-7 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Jason-3 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Jupiter-C (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Landing Zones 1 and 2 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lockheed Martin X-33 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Bottom-Class. (rev · t)
  • Long March 7 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • N1 (rocket) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • New Shepard (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Nikolai Kibalchich (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Omelek Island (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Photon rocket (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Pralay (missile) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Project Icarus (photography) (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Propulsive efficiency (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Rocket Cargo (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Rocket Lab Neutron (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Rocket sled (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Saman-1 (rocket stage) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Sea Dragon (rocket) (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from High-Class to Bottom-Class. (rev · t)
  • Soyuz-L (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Soyuz (rocket) (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from High-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • SpaceX CRS-5 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • SpaceX Draco (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • SpaceX Red Dragon (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • SpaceX Starship (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to GA-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from High-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • SpaceX launch vehicles (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • Space Launch System (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to GA-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from High-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to FA-Class. (rev · t)
  • SuperDraco (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Super Heavy (rocket stage) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Syntin (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Thor (rocket family) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Top-Class. (rev · t)
  • Titan (rocket family) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Top-Class. (rev · t)
  • Titan IIIB (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Titan IIIC (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Tom Mueller (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • VSS Unity (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • VSS Unity VP-03 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Vulcan Centaur (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Bottom-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Zenit (rocket family) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed edit

Removed edit

  1. ^ For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. However, where quite a number of pictures exist, for instance, the moon landing, FPC attempts to select the best of the ones produced.
  2. ^ An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. Adding an image to numerous articles to gain EV is counterproductive and may antagonize both FPC reviewers and article editors.
  3. ^ While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rocketry/Assessment&oldid=1061473998"