Talk:International Space Station/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about International Space Station. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Legal & Financial Section split proposal

I'd like to propose that we split out the sections on the legal and financial areas of the station to a new article - I think a much shorter summary of a few paragraphs would provide a more concise overview, cutting down this very long article. My suggestion for the new article title is Legal and Financial Aspects of the ISS. Comments? Colds7ream (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If these sections are split to a new article, then IMHO it should include the section titled "Criticism". The title of the article could then be Political and Financial Aspects of the ISS. Martin451 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, although we'd probably need to be more careful about what we removed there. Colds7ream (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've split off the legal and financial sections to Political and financial aspects of the ISS, and put a summary in their place - probably someone should look at that to check its OK. Still not sure about moving the criticism section, though... Colds7ream (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Following the recent expansion of the article in response to the ongoing Peer Review, I'd like to change my vote with regards to also moving the criticism section. The article is pretty long as things stand, and we're probably going to have to think about removing some bits, and this section is a prime candidate for moving. For instance, all other spacecraft, the prime example being the Space Shuttle, have their criticism sections in separate articles (eg Space shuttle program), plus the section is one of the dodgier in the article, and a smaller summary would probably be better in this main ISS article. Any thoughts? Colds7ream (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think wii shud kEp tha critisism sextion. Some times thingies nEd too B critisized. Always rememburr that no things ever purrfect. If it wus thN the world wud B boar-ing if U no wut eye meen. I think bunnies R faster than space shuttles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.46.111 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh... Thanks for that... :-S Colds7ream (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of Assembly section & some general comments.

If everyone agrees, I'd like to see the assembly section expanded quite a bit - at the moment, it only describes the joining of Zarya, Unity & Zvezda, with nothing since. Aside from that, I really think we're starting to get there with this article - anyone disagree with putting it up for Peer Review after we expand the assembly section? Colds7ream (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, following a great flurry of replies here, I've expanded the section and put the article up for Peer Review - anyone who would like to help out with that, assistance would be much appreciated! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the PR completed - onwards to GAN! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, should the "scheduled to be launched" part of this section be a separate heading so that it appears in the contents ? It's not easy to find that part otherwise. Secondly I am working on producing an accurate ISS model that can be easily updated as the station changes and can be uploaded to commons. See here for an example of usage, and more renders. Here is another example of a 3DS version I have. I am currently working with the Hi Res model produced by NASA although that is in a bad way really. It has missing textures and modules. A clear ISS model could be used in the assembly section to clearly show the location of elements. DJ Barney (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Nice models there - I saw them on NSF a while ago! Thing is, we've already got a schematic view of the modules in a diagram at the bottom of the infobox, which has the station exploded and all the components labelled, which is probably a bit clearer, if not as attractive. If you think you can find a good spot in the assembly section to put a 3D model, though, be our guest! Colds7ream (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes, I see the schematic is an SVG so can be used to make images at any size. IMO there could be a separate little image in the assembly section from that SVG, for each ISS element. I suspect the 3D model will become useful somewhere. DJ Barney (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ISS Logo.png

Earlier today a new editor removed sections of the infobox while adding a new image of the station as seen from Endeavour prior to docking. I fixed the infobox and added this image, but when I looked back at the article from months ago, I notice that the Image:ISS_Logo.png was removed, and a redundant image of the station seen from STS-124 replaced it. It is my thought that the flag image is important to emphasize the international cooperation of the station, and the infobox already had two images of the station, one at the top, and one at the bottom, so it seems quite unnecessary to have two images of the station from space, and another at the bottom. Due to this, I am removing the STS-124 image and restoring the flag logo. If this logo was removed for a specific reason (I see no conversation here that explains its removal) feel free to post here explaining why it shouldn't be included. Ariel♥Gold 03:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me - I agree that the logo should be in there somewhere, and this arrangement seems to be a reasonable approach. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the logo looks very pretty. It got a modern look to it aint it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.46.111 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent copyvio

I was trying to find a source for a statement in this article (covered windows), and noticed this article, which largely copies much of this article as background/context for its own. There are so many lines in that article that look familiar to me. I can't believe they were so lazy. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:International Space Station/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will review this article. Robert Skyhawk ^{(Talk to me)} 18:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Review by Robert Skyhawk

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The writing is very reader-friendly; there weren't any parts that I couldn't understand. Good wikilinking too.

B. MoS compliance:
Solid lead section, and no complaints about the body.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I believe this article easily passes the criteria; I will promote it to GA status. Congratulations to all involved editors. Robert Skyhawk ^{(Talk to me)} 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Our Next Step

So, folks - we did it! Good Article status has been regained! (Many thanks to Robert Skyhawk!) My question is this; as the next step, do we go for an A-class review, or do we plough right on to Featured Article nomination? I'd like to go for FA right away, but I look forward to everyone's opinions here! Colds7ream (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK folks, having heard no dissenting voices, I'll put the article up for FAC now. :-) Lets hope all goes well! Colds7ream (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Failed FAC

Hey all - I'm just wondering what's people's take on the failed FAC - all points that were raised were dealt with, but no-one gave a vote for support and the whole thing died through lack of activity. Any ideas as to what to do now? :-S Colds7ream (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing to do is to go back through the FAC and make sure that all was dealt with, then wait about a week and then if everything has been done, re-nominate the article. (That's what I'd do, but I'm not sure if the FAC rules allow it) -MBK₀₀₄ 13:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any notice that we were even nominated, or a link to the review. Seems like such an important article, of such central interest, should attract more comment and criticism, positive and negative. BTW, I wish there was more community chatter here on the talk page, as I've asked for comments and suggestions on particular subjects a few times, and never seem to get much response. But thanks for the good work that has been done lately. Wwheaton (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Y'see, this is the thing - I put a message on here, the standard templates, added links to the FAC to the to do lists at WikiProjects Spaceflight and Human spaceflight, and still no-one seemed interested; I don't know what to do... :-( I've posted suggestions and comments several times, and no-one ever seems to reply... Colds7ream (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I missed it entirely. I'm probably watching too many articles, and not paying enough attention to any. Personally I do not always notice a change in the templates at the top, so with something so important you might catch more attention (from me at least) if you also put a new section, at the end of talk, with the news and links. I often get the word about such things via an announcement on one of the project talk pages if it is posted there. Anyhow, I'll try to watch more closely, although I still don't know how everything works around here. Let's wait a little and try again, I guess. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, most of the complaints seemed to revolve around a double-check of citations and the need for a copyedit - possibly we could get the relevant WikiProjects involved (Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup) to help us out with this? In other news, is there some way of getting a bot to send a message to everyone on the WP:HSF member's list when we go for FAC again? Colds7ream (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I was intending on doing a bit more work on the sources, but i had a busy week due to a conference. When I get back, i'll see if i can take another look. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, DJ - in other news, I've put in a request for assistance with both o the above projects, so we'll see what replies we get! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

At least now I know about WP:HSF, have joined, and will watch the talk page. Thanks -- Wwheaton (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as yet we've had no response from the WikiProjects that are supposed to be able to help us out with this... Any ideas, anyone? Colds7ream (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Date format

During the FAC it was suggested that the dates should be changed to Day-Month-Year format. Can I know what the status of this is please. --G W… 10:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Pass. I put in some requests with WikiProjects, and I think it'd be good if we can wait for them to get back to us, partly because a news set of eyes might spot something else, and partly because if we get the OK from specific WikiProjects it'll give us some more clout in FAC. Colds7ream (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that the WikiProjects that are supposed to help us with this appear worse than useless, I went ahead and standardised all the reference dates (I hope... :-D). All we need now is a thorough copyedit! :-) Are we going to go for A-class review first this time, or have another stab at FAC? Colds7ream (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think that it would be a good idea to switch all dates that are not part of references to the DMY format. --G W… 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough - I'll get to work on that tomorrow. Colds7ream (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - the dates in the article prose are now all standardised to DMY, the 'date' field in references to MDY, and the 'accessdate' field in references as ISO 8601 format. I also had a go at a copyedit and found a few niggles, but if someone could review the article with a new set of eyes, possibly in an A-class review, I think we're pretty much there! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Where?

Sorry for my ignorance, but where exactly does one find the critical comments of the reviewers that caused it to fail? Thanks in advance. Wwheaton (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The FAC can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive1. Colds7ream (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

The reliable source questions about some of the website will be asked again, I can guarantee it. Responses to them should be ready and/or reliable sources found to replace the questionable ones. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've dealt with the spacedaily, sworld and space-travel references by examining each article and replacing its reference with a more primary one. The spaceref reference may be more of an issue, as it details the leaked letter, and, by its very nature, we can't link to the primary source, which would be a relevant NASA page. As for heavens-above, I maintain its accuracy anyhow - many a time I've stood outside and watched the station pass overhead exactly as detailed on heavens-above - it's a reliable website, and I think it'd stand up to scrutiny in FAC. Comments? Colds7ream (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Review

OK folks, as you can see, I've put us up for Peer Review one final time, and I'm hoping this will pass us for A-class. Comments and contributions are, as ever, greatly appreciated. You can find the ongoing A-class review here: Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive3 Colds7ream (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Observation: Latitude. Please clarify.

-- "ground based observation of the station is possible with the naked eye if one is within 63 degrees latitude" -- Could we please clarify this for the layperson?
I first thought that this meant "ground based observation of the station is possible if one is between 63 degrees latitude north and 63 degrees latitude south."
I then thought that it means "ground based observation of the station is possible if one is within 63 degrees latitude of its current position in the sky."
I'm not really sure what it means. :-)
Can we please clarify? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - your first thought was the correct one; it's because the station only orbits over the Earth in that range, due to the positions of Kennedy Space Centre and Baikonur Cosmodrome. Colds7ream (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a combination of the ±51° range traced out by the orbit track (just the orbital inclination), and also the distance you can see an object in LEO from the ground (same as the distance to the horizon from the ISS, of course), which must be roughly 1300 km; though the observable distance is less in practice because there is a lot of air in the way if it is near the horizon. So the inclination gives you the 51 degrees, and then it is about 12 degrees from the ISS to the horizon. Since it moves around 4 degrees a minute, the longest possible pass, directly overhead, would be about 6 minutes long. (And again, in practice it would never be in sunlight that long if the observer had a dark sky overhead.) Wwheaton (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Recent Spate of Vandalism

Seriously folks, what's going on here? Did we irritate the troll community or something? Colds7ream (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but I've requested semi-protection. --G W… 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good shout - looks like it could come in handy... Colds7ream (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Contributors Map

I'm not sure about that main contributors map that was put on lately - I've removed it again for now, as I'm not sure its necessary due to the listing we give in the lead, I didn't like the placement, and Brazil, one of the main subcontracted nations, isn't highlighted. Any comments? Colds7ream (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The map has a valid source: ESA. The source is indicated in the file description. Brazil is not a direct contributor to the ISS. Placement issue can't be an argument for removal. The proper section should be found. Emilfaro (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Brazil participates in the ISS programme: [1] Colds7ream (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This agreement has only to do with NASA contributions to ISS. Brazil does not contribute directly. Emilfaro (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And where in the legend to that map does it state direct contributors? Ah yes, that's right: nowhere. You'll find details of the AEB's contribution in the main article text, should you care to look. Incidentally, don't ever accuse me of vandalising this article again. It's been the dedicated work of myself and a small group of WP:HSF editors that have got this article where it is today, on the cusp of FA. Colds7ream (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dare? I was simply stating the fact, as you have been repeatedly removing the sourced data. The only mention I find is this: "The Brazilian Space Agency (AEB, Brazil) participates through a separate contract with NASA." You have referenced that. And Brazil indeed deserves to be mentioned in the article. But the issue is, who ISS does belong to. It belongs to those agencies that are direct contributors to ISS. And Brazil is not there. If you think, that there is a better caption for the map, I would only appreciate this contribution to the higher quality of this article. If you think, that other contributors should be indicated, you could edit the svg file with the Notepad, or what ever, and upload a better version. Do not forget to mention all the other subcontractors, who provide glass, metals, rubber to build this station. You'll soon find out that the whole world builds the station one way or another. But instead improving, or trying to improve you remove the valid information, which has a good source. ESA itself indicates its members, which contribute the most. So the bottom line, if you are up to improving, do so. Destruction and removal are not always the best way to do so. Emilfaro (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't want to offend. For the further explanation a quote from ESA: "This means that the owners of the Space Station - the United States, Russia, the European Partner, Japan and Canada - are legally responsible for the respective elements they provide." Emilfaro (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the map. I think it would be more appropriate to place it in Political and financial aspects, where it would illustrate the member countries mentioned in the text. Can the map be adjusted to show both direct and indirect contributors, perhaps in different colors? Wronkiew (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I could do this if someone provided the list of all the indirect contributors for NASA, RKA, JAXA, CSA and ESA. It would be unjust, if we forgot someone, mentioning the other. Emilfaro (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright then! Cold, can you make a list of indirect contributors, with references? Wronkiew (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not a real third party. I have worked with Colds7tream before on this article and I respect the work he has put into it. However, since it seems that this issue can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and since there are now more than two people involved in the discussion, I'll go ahead and remove the third opinion tag and listing. Wronkiew (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to - I'll get working on it, and feedback with a full listing. Colds7ream (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - done. Here is a factsheet with a listing of all nations who are contributing, courtesy of NASA: [2]. It lists "the U.S., Canada, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom". Meanwhile, as I've cited in the introductory paragraph, here's details of Brazil's contract with NASA: [3], and of Italy's contract with NASA: [4]. As a result, we can say that the list of primary contracted nations is:

USA
Canada
Russia
Japan
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
The Netherlands
Norway
Sweden
Spain
Switzerland

Whilst nations which have subcontracted with NASA are:

Brazil
Italy

Possibly Italy could have stripes, showing both colours that will be on the map? Colds7ream (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources in the article look good, though [5], which you cited above, does not mention Brazil. The AEB contribution should also be explained in a later section, per the GA criteria. I don't think it's necessary to differentiate direct contributors from mixed contributors. Russia also had a separate contract with NASA, but it would be silly to change its status because of that. Emilfaro, can you update the SVG? Wronkiew (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I have added Brazil. Stripes are a bit difficult, as there is no .svg Wikipedia blank map, that allows them for now. But if absolutely necessary, it can be done. If you need the legend, browse to the file description. 2. What about other ESA participants? The 2% of money are listed for "others", than ten listed. 3. Any additional ones? Emilfaro (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I say that the new version of the map is fantastic - many thanks for the update. Colds7ream (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If you find anyone else to add to the map, you are welcome. Emilfaro (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, link 3 up there should have been [6]. My apologies for the incorrect link. Colds7ream (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice map and good page but you have the UK missing as a member of the ESA (as noted above in the discussion but missed from the list). If that could be fixed it would be excellent 82.36.73.60 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.73.60 (talk)

Though a member of ESA, the UK does not participate in any of the "manned" spaceflight programs that ESA participates in. This does bring up a good point btw. the fact that the listed european nations are the "founding" nations, whilst I'm sure that many of the "new" ESA countries are also participating in current ISS operations funding.... Strike that. I thought the late 2008 new budget saw new contributors, but I was wrong. The ISS is still a "voluntary" program of ESA with just 10 of the 18 partners contributing. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

NASA-tv video tour of the ISS

I know that there are a few videos imbedded into some wikipedia articles. There was recently a video tour of the ISS made by NASA TV. How do you get a video like that published here? (there should be no problems with (c) cus its a nasa tv thing) klik U5K0 (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure - as far as I'm aware, you can't add YouTube videos to articles if any more (please, folks, correct me if I'm wrong). However, if you can find the source file, a tutorial for adding videos can be found at Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Video. Colds7ream (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a way to link to YouTube appropriately as long as the content does not violate copyright law. {{YouTube}}. As far as I am aware, embedding into articles is strictly out of the question. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The video tour is now on Commons: File:January 2009 ISS tour.ogg. Wronkiew (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, very nice indeed. (Now to find a place to put it in the article). -MBK₀₀₄ 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit 270416098

Just to let everyone know that in my recent edit 270416098, as well as performing the program-programme conversions, I also removed the final paragraph of the lead in an attempt to shorten it slightly, but failed to mention this in my edit summary. Colds7ream (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This article and any other space flight article should be written in American English rather than British English for the simple reason that principles for this program are the United States of America and Russia. Documentation for the ISS from the principles are written in American English. 70.170.125.247 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is international, with countries contributing from all around the world. This article has already standardised on British English, and should remain as British English, as no individual country has a claim on it. Martin451 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring

Per the current peer review I've moved the sections around to, hopefully, represent a broader appeal.

I've also opened an "Overview" section and moved the exploded view from the infobox into it at a much larger scale to promote its legibility.

The text in that new section is itself sketchy for the time being, but the general point is to provide an overview of what the project is, and why it's important. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbers in the info box

There are some very accurate numbers in the info box, e.g. Mass: 227,267 kg and Orbits per day: 15.72397664 . Do we really know the mass to 1 part in a million, and the orbits per days to 10 significant figures (The orbits per day displayed in the box is a different value than used in the formula to calculate the total orbits). Martin451 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can record the mass that accurately, as, of course, all modules and cargo shipped to station are accurately recorded by the programme - the orbital data, however, changes due to drag and reboost, so I've despecified it in both entries to 15.7. Seem reasonable? Colds7ream (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now. Martin451 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Although 10 is a bit "over the top". I think 15 is underspecified. I'm of this opinion due to the significance of the amount of sunsets/rises experienced aboard the station. As such 15.8 is a better approximation than 15 orbits per day. Also, the 10 digit accurate number is from memory an "average number" we once calculated from the NASA records. To calculate an approximation of the total number or orbits, I thus think it is a better starting point than 15. (thought it might be helpful to add a footnote that mentions that this is a live calculation? ) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW. I was reading this again, and I have often seen arguments like this when Space articles were the topic. I guess it will surprise many people, that not only do they pretty accurately know how much mass there is up there, they even know where in the 3D markup of the station that mass is. This is critical information in spaceflight, because you need to know this when you are firing thrusters to move such a huge structure. The "balance" of the structure is determined by the mass and its distribution. Actually, transferral of crew is even part of the cargo transferral logging between Space Shuttle and ISS. Not to claim that after so much time, they are not probably off several 100 kgs, but keeping track of all cargo transfers (including waste dumping) where possible is still a protocol that is closely followed as accurately as humanly possible. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit

As Colds7ream already knows, I saw this article a few days ago on the GOCE list, and decided to head on over. I'm trying my best to get through the article soon, as I am leaving for New York in a few days and will not be back for a week. If anyone has any questions about any of my edits, please feel free to ask. Also, after I am finished, I will see if I can track down another copy editor to do a run through. Two sets of eyes are better than one. :)

By the way, wonderful article so far... Very informative... Pax85 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this Pax - and the second eye set would be very handy! When you're done with the CE, would you mind commenting on the ongoing peer review page? Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be sure to head on over there... Pax85 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating current information...

The final paragraph in the Assembly section starts off "As of July 2008" and then proceeds to list the current components of the station. Has there been anything added since then? If there is, we may want to add them in, and change it to Feb 08. If not, then we can still update the date. :) Pax85 (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, we're good - STS-126 was a logistics and R&R flight; the next main component will be the last bit of truss, launching with STS-119. Colds7ream (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Space Shuttle

Going through the article, I have seen Space Shuttle and space shuttle. I have looked around the encyclopaedia, and can not seem to find consensus on which version to use. Does anyone else have any ideas? If we can come to an agreement, I will go through and change the different instances... Pax85 (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is the "Space Shuttle programme", "Space Shuttle Challenger", but "a space shuttle flight". Ergo. whether or not the usage is a proper noun. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep - it's always been a bit of an issue, this, but that seems to be pretty much the standard. Colds7ream (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds like an interesting project to go through the space flight articles, find, and replace for the correct instances. :) Pax85 (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably less 'interesting' and more 'tedious in the extreme', but I know what you mean. :-D Colds7ream (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what tools like AWB are good for. :) Pax85 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Finished copy edit...

Well folks, I just finished my copy edit... There are still a couple more things that I would like to check out, and I want to try and get someone else from the GOCE over here and take a look as well. After I finish up with RL duties (i.e. biology and sign language class) I will return this evening (pacific time) to complete those tasks. Pax85 (talk)

Many thanks for that Pax - it's immensely appreciated by all here. If you wouldn't mind, it'd be great if you could pen a few words on the ongoing peer review page - we're hoping to get a consensus for A-class status. Colds7ream (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went back through and did a bit of clean-up. Also, I posted a new request here over at GOCE, and asked if this copy editor would be able to go through as well, just to make sure (this person seems pretty active). I will head over to the peer review now. After tomorrow, I will be gone for about a week, so good luck everyone, and I'll stop in when I get back... Pax85 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got this article as next on my to-do list. I will be copy editing it over the next few days. I usually edit section by section. I will do a section or two tonight. I'll update this page when I finish my edits. AikiHawkeye (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Aiki - it's appreciated by us all. If possible, when you're done, would you be kind enough to put a comment on our ongoing peer review page? Many thanks once again, Colds7ream (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Question Re: origins section

Here is how the last sentence of the Origins section reads:

The first module, Zarya, was launched in 1998, and construction was expected to be complete by 2003.

My question was: Was it complete by 2003?

ColdS7ream answered: No, with delays and other issues, it probably won't be completed to 2011, as detailed elsewhere in the article

My question now is: Should we re-write the sentence to make it clear that it wasn't finished by 2003 because of those delays and other issues? We don't have to get too in depth or technical here. (and we could add a "See Below"). My concern is that the wording made me wonder if it was out of date.

Perhaps: "When the first module, Zarya, was launched in 1998, it was expected to be completed by 2003, but delays have put the estimated completion date somewhere around 2011."

Thoughts? AikiHawkeye (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable solution; I've executed the change. Colds7ream (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC

The article should problably go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates

WhatisFeelings? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

That is what several people have been working on for the last 3 months. Shouldn't be long now. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just send it over now since nobody is stating any problems? WhatisFeelings? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

We're currently undergoing a copyedit and A-class review - once those are done, we'll be moving forward with a second go at FAN. Colds7ream (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Overview section

The information in the Overview section should be transferred to their relevant sections, including the lead. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The overview section was added following comments from an engineer on the current peer review that an introductory section describing the purpose of the station would aid reader's orientation when beginning to read the article. I've restored these sections for now and carried out some minor edits on your changes to the lead section. Colds7ream (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've completely reverted since major changes to a well-established article need to be properly discussed before and consensus obtained. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead serves as the introductory section. I read the reviews in the peer review. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the information on educational activities could be moved to a new section (ISS educational activities?), or if possible, a current section that is relevant. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The other information in the overview is more mixed. The first sentence of the overview should just be removed as it's regurgitation of the lead.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Think of this, the edits that you made in this past hour decimated material that was compiled and presented in a format that was put together by several editors over a period of months with the consensus required to support such. In the span of several minutes you decided that it was wrong and without consulting any of those editors, jumped in and made the article look the way that you thought it should. Did you even think for one minute about that? You really should talk to Colds7ream (talk · contribs) since he's done much of the work. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The way I see things, the article structure as we now have it has passed through several peer reviews, a GAN and two reviews courtesy of users from the Guild of Copyeditors to arrive in its present form. Whilst it has been flagged that the lead section needs a little attention, User:Pax85, the editor who noted this, stated that the lead only needed some small edits to make it better. My plan was to give the lead a bit of a tidy, move some sentences around and merge others, but I have to say that removing large amounts of information from the section probably isn't the way to go about it. Of course, any editor who has a proposal for how it can be improved is more than welcome to make that known, but if it could be as a suggestion here that'd be grand, as opposed to just diving in with a virtual chainsaw. Colds7ream (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead needed improvement according to peer review; I attempted to improve it. See "Lead 3 Paragraph."

With respect, how does editing the lead involve tearing apart our overview section? Colds7ream (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It was just said that the information in the overview could be moved to their relevant sections... including the lead section. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"removing large amounts of information" - the educational related information was moved to a new section, whilst the political related one was moved to section 4, which was the most relevant. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, then changes like that should have been done and proposed separately apart from rewriting the lead. Making multiple changes together, if one is seen as acceptable and the other is not isn't how things get done. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"how does editing the lead involve... [the] overview section?" - because, as said, the "lead serves as the introductory section." WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead should only summarize the article, and everything that is in it should appear elsewhere in the article. Therefore, eliminating text from the article to have it appear on in the lead goes against the guidelines. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you really believe that an Overview section is neccessary, then just keep it. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"eliminating text from the article to have it appear on in the lead" - nothing in the overview was moved to the lead. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

the lead and the origin sections already serves as overviews; i really don't understand why you need an Overview section. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

also, the educational related activities doesn't serve as an overview for the information in the upcoming sections.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead 3 Paragraph

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Space_Station&diff=274291732&oldid=274290401

Slightly better; opinions? WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget about it; i've given up.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Finished copy edit II

I have finished my copy edit. I will visit the peer review section next. this is the most fun article I've worked on to date. I look forward to seeing this as a featured article! AikiHawkeye (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Aiki! It's appreciated by us all! :-D Colds7ream (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)