Support: Per my own nomination. I have not contributed to this article, but upon reading it, I was struck with how informative it was, without being too technichal for non-scientists to appreciate. Plenty of graphics. Its everything the Featured Article checklist says it should be. Give Peace A Chance 01:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On my first pass, picking a random paragraph, I saw prose problems (Over the decades since the 1950s, a rich technical jargon has grown around the engineering of vehicles designed to enter planetary atmospheres), and the article is mostly unreferenced. Sandy 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object. The informational depth of this article is impressive, but it suffers from a few small problems. Long stretches of the article have no illustrations, whereas others have a glut of images, that makes the text difficult to read. Also, there is too much bolded text through the main body of the article, bold text is usually only used for the opener, I believe. Other than that, an excellent article. RyanGerbil10(Drop on in!) 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support conditional on changes suggested by RyanGerbil -- more illustrations, in particular, as there should be plenty that are GFDL (just look in the Apollo articles, etc.) and the format regularizing. I don't see the prose problems as particularly troubling. Crowbait 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support: there are long paragraphs without illustrations, more references needed. NCursework 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Many sections and paragraphs have no inline citations, lead is too short, WP:MOS needs to be consulted on excessive use of bolding, italic and lists. And what is 'Important text books relevant to atmospheric entry'? Further reading?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
