I think this is within spitting distance of being an FAC, but since this project seems more active than peer review, being here might get the distance finished faster. The main shortcoming seems to be the currently very incomplete history, but there is much info easily gathered from the official site and places like a BART critique, such that I don't think it would take serious visits to the library to flesh it out--just someone(somepeople) to synthesize the info into NPOV, encyclopedic discussion. The FAC nominator so far has not addressed the objections, even tho', like I say, it seems quite do-able. (It already has nice pics, and I hope to add some when the weather clears, but they're forecasting clouds and rain here thru the weekend.) Niteowlneils 13:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Saw this on the Wikipedia: featured article removal candidates. It's a holdover from the less stringent FA rules, I'd guess. It definitely needs work -- that list is ugly, it's nowhere near comprehensive and there's a single reference! --Dmcdevit 07:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Both voyager missions should have substantial articles is what i feel and i will soon start work on it hopefully. There is lot to be written for both the missions. kaal 19:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
cannot nominate for the COTW as not stub, but still very brief.
This is the Article improvement Drive, not the Collaberation of the Week. This is for non-stub articles to be improved. Peb1991 22:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that's what 'e meant. -Litefantastic 22:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Copyrighted content meant the article is pretty much empty, could be a really good article with effort. Not a stub so unsuitable for COTW--PopUpPirate 15:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
