This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
JAXA was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 17:11, July 21, 2024 (JST, Reiwa6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
It seems like this page is due for updating, as it mentions events in 2009/2010 as "future" events, and leaves the reader unsure about outcomes.Cbihun (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i believe the [previous, pre-merger] space organization/apparatus in japan has had satellite-launch capabilities for several decades. the first paragraph of the wiki is pretty misleading in that it mentions that JAXA has 'already launched its first satellite.' which is just a bureacratic landmark, not a landmark in their space program. but it seems to imply that japan hasn't launched satellites into orbit before.
The article states:
Development of the M-5 rocket was lobbied for by right-wing politicians, because of its possible military applications. [1]
Does everyone agree with me that the usage of JAXA images is okay considering the JAXA policy?JAXA permits the use of JAXA texts, drawings, imagery, sounds, pictures and other materials if the purpose of the use is approved as for education, public relations, or information providing, or if the use is within the scope of relevant laws. In such cases, insertion of credits is required for used texts, drawings, imagery, sounds, pictures and other materials.--212.183.37.801:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't know. If you can suggest a valid category for use it would help. Why don't you check the Wikipedia categories for using images and see which one these images might fit? --DannyWilde02:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no category for JAXA images. There's one for NASA, and so far there are no images actually from JAXA anywhere on Wikipedia, just those that appear on NASA websites.--Planetary01:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the usage of the JAXA images are not okay. Note: "Your use of the Materials for business or commercial purposes without the prior permission of the copyright holder (JAXA) is strictly prohibited." That doesn't qualify as a free license. Strictly speaking, JAXA images from the NASA websites aren't OK either, if JAXA holds the copyright to it. --朝彦 (Asahiko)07:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created a series of photographs, on October 24, 2012, at the Japan Information and Culture Center (JICC) as part of Space Talk. Various space-related officals were there, such as Leland D. Melvin (US astronaut), Norishige Kanai (Japanese astronaut), and Midori Nishiura (JAXA Executive Advisor for Public Affairs and International Relations and Visiting Professor of Yamaguchi University).
This article needed some major cleanup, as it faced major flow and grammar issues. I hope that I have improved it. In, the process, I removed the controversies section, as the reference was broken. If someone wants to put that back in, that's fine, but don't do it by reverting, as you will remove my hard work on the rest of the article. The controversy over the m-5 rocket's alleged military uses is discussed in the m-5 article, however. Does it need to be in the JAXA article? Colby07:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a link to NeXT, as the wikipedia article with this title refers to a now defunct software company, and not the mission of the same name. I hope this is all right.
This article is not nearly well enough sourced. It's only got 2 inline citations and four direct links (which should be converted). There are plenty of claims made in the article that should be sourced and aren't.
Certain portions of the article are not well written. Many sentences are short and/or fragmentary. (e.g. "Whole mission time is around 3 months." and "First launch, GCOM-W is scheduled for 2010 with the H-2A.")
The article is not well organized. It has very many short sections, which should either be expanded to give a more robust picture of each mission, or combined. (I recommend the former; it seems there is much more that could be said about this agency that is yet to be covered.)
Image:JAXAlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I also got about 2.5 million results for '"JAXA" space' versus 0.6 million for '"Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency"' in a regular search. --W.D.Graham16:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I started this article and probably chose the name because the NASA article at the time was probably the long name. I see that the NASA article is now found at the short name. -- ke4roh (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As shown in my search results above, JAXA is clearly the common name. However, I remained concern that users outside of the science community don't call the agency JAXA. I for one had never seen the acronym before today. In reviewing my search results, it pretty clear that it mostly science orientated sources instead of generalist sources. Further, I generally don't like acronyms but there is no way I could in good conscious oppose as the search results are clear.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It's likely that there's some good stuff in the Japan's space development article, but it's only roughly translated from the Japanese version. I suspect that that article should be deleted, or just become a base of links to the various articles, such as this one, here in the English wikipedia. Snori (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the ground stations for interplanetary spacecraft communications
Where are the ground stations for interplanetary spacecraft communications ? Could say what sizes and frequencies too. - Rod57 (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason to prefer one of them, so I would suggest the default "article creator decides/whatever is more common now". --mfb (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
