Talk:Astrophysics Data System

message: The ADS project is building a totally revised system, both the back end software and the user interfaces will be completely different.  The prototype UI can be seen at adsabs.org/ui  The current schedule is that a beta version, similar to the prototype, will be released on 1 Jan 2012, and this will replace the current system on 1 Jan 2013.  At that time the current Wikipedia article will be fully outdated. MJKurtz  —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial changes are in the works for the ADS.  They will make much of the current article obsolete 

message: Hi, I have put this article under the scope of the WikiProject Systems because of the formal relation, but more because of the inspiring and motivating example this article can give our project and it's participants (to come). We are still a small and beginning group, and working to get our own toko going. In due time I hope we can also deliver a valuable contributions here from our point of view. In the mean time I wish all of you all te best. Best regards - Mdd 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article within the scope of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems|WikiProjects Systems]] 

message: The template  can be used to link to the ADS page given the articles bibcode. --Salix (talk): 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_13#Template:Adsabs. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI:  can be used with proper |bibcode= code instead of . Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to ADS on wikipedia 

message: At present there are multiple single-paragraph sections (Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_sections) and multiple single-sentence paragraphs (Wikipedia:Layout#Paragraphs). These would likely have been raised as issues during an FAC. I think they should probably be merged or expanded, where possible.—RJH (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout concerns

message: I have replaced the fact tags with references, but the article needs to be checked for the correctness and appropriateness of my added references, as I am not confident of them; they were suggested on my talk page by a major author cited in the article. I have asked the opinion of others, but would feel better if they were checked.
Also, the article remains somewhat under referenced. More citations are needed and from wider sources.  —Mattisse (Talk) 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References need checking 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Astrophysics Data System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610000234/http://aas.aanda.org:80/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/aas:2000170 to http://aas.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/aas:2000170
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610000303/http://aas.aanda.org:80/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/aas:2000172 to http://aas.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/aas:2000172
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610000239/http://aas.aanda.org:80/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/aas:2000171 to http://aas.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/aas:2000171
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This early FA promotion doesn't seem to meet the current standards.  There are large chunks of uncited text.  I also have concerns about how up-to-date this is, as the all of the information given and all of the references seem to predate 2010. Hog Farm  Bacon 00:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting find, it defiantly does not pass for FA as it stands, it doesn't even pass the standards for WP:DYK having multiple totally uncited paragraphs. It also seems strange to have a FA, which should be "thorough", rely on only fourteen sources. Not my field of expertise, but I would suggest anyone interested in seeing it remain FA to start coming up with references and bringing the article up to date. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA concerns 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion