Talk:Encyclopedia Astronautica: Difference between revisions
→Reliable Source: reliability quote |
→Reliable Source: Reply |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
"Mark Wade's online ''Encyclopedia Astronautica'' has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." ''Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight'', [https://books.google.co.uk/?id=bYEgAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA485 pp. 484–485]. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 13:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC) |
"Mark Wade's online ''Encyclopedia Astronautica'' has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." ''Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight'', [https://books.google.co.uk/?id=bYEgAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA485 pp. 484–485]. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 13:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
:Even with this last statement it cannot be generally stated that the ''Encyclopedia Astronautica'' is unreliable. This is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Doubts or errors should be addressed more specifically. Some Wikipedia articles on rocketry science, although peer-reviewed, may have major issues. [[User:SchmiAlf|SchmiAlf]] ([[User talk:SchmiAlf|talk]]) 09:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== It's back == |
== It's back == |
Revision as of 09:26, 24 October 2022
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Notability Discussion
This article has been tagged for {{notability}} issues since October 2007, without any commentary. A similar article (which interlinks to this article), on Jonathan's Space Report, seems to have the same issue but I've not tagged it (nor was I the original notability tagger for this E.A. article. I haven't researched Encyclopedia Astronautica sufficently yet to have a vote in the notability discussion, but there needs to be a notability discussion soon, else the tag ought to be removed and an {{expand}} tag added. - Ageekgal (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- No discussion. I have changed the tag. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- As a space historian, let me say Mark Wade's site and Jonathan's site are very notable. For scholarly references, it's always a good idea to check web sources, but I have mostly found astronautix.com to be useful and reliable and a real public service.
- Given that porn stars have their own Wikipedia pages, it's really a shame when someone suggests deleting an article about a productive and useful work like Mark Wade's website. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just removed it again. People seem to want to tag it, but not to discuss or justify their tag. AFD is the right place to settle issues of notability and tags are not meant to be a permanent badge of shame. No one can fix a perceived problem if you don't tell us what it is. SpinningSpark 13:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Reliable Source
How reliable is Encyclopedia Astronautica considered as a source for Wikipedia articles? It seems very good, but also self-published by Mark Wade. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mark Wade doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources; but it appears this website is relatively well-respected, and is cited by several reliable sources (such as books, and NASA itself has referred others to the website). So I would say citing Encyclopedia Astronautica as a source is better than citing no source at all, but this information can often be found elsewhere; so using this website as a source should probably be avoided. Mlm42 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Mark Wade is a reliable source, per the American Astronautical Society's History Committee I have found errors in his work, but no more, and none more egregious, than ones I've found in "reliable" sources including encyclopedias and the NSSDC. --Neopeius (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
"Mark Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight, pp. 484–485. SpinningSpark 13:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Even with this last statement it cannot be generally stated that the Encyclopedia Astronautica is unreliable. This is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Doubts or errors should be addressed more specifically. Some Wikipedia articles on rocketry science, although peer-reviewed, may have major issues. SchmiAlf (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
It's back
The site is back up; updating the entry to reflect this.Fishing Chimp (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's great. Thank you. Dr.K.
λ ogosπ raxis 01:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Stub-Class spaceflight articles
- Low-importance spaceflight articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles
- Stub-Class Astronomy articles
- Bottom-importance Astronomy articles
- Stub-Class Astronomy articles of Bottom-importance
- Stub-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- Stub-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- Stub-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles