Talk:Mir Docking Module/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nanobear (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I believe the prose does not yet satisfy good article criteria. It is somewhat tedious to read and has some problems. There are a lot of technical terms and for someone who does not know them understanding this article will require clicking through a large number of links. For example, it would better if the first sentence of the first chapter said "Buran space shuttle" instead of just "Buran" so that they reader will immediately know what it is. Other examples: "to dock to Mir, the Kristall module would have to be relocated to the forward port of the core module and back to its own lateral port each time" -- each time of what? My understanding is that it means each time the shuttle needs to dock, but I found the sentence quite unclear. "Discussions on providing a docking module for the programme" -- what programme? The Shuttle-Mir programme was mentioned so long ago in text the reader will no longer remember what programme refers to. "In addition to simplifying space shuttle docking missions, the docking module" -- which docking module? It should read "...the Mir Docking Module" (capitalised, as in article title). "when installed on the station during EO-21 in 1996" -- most readers will have no idea what EO-21 is. Should be "during the EO-21 mission." "MEEP also fulfilled the" -- what is MEEP? The acronym has not been explained in text. There are a lot of other problems, but they are similar to these examples.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I have a slight problem with ref number 3. Anatoly Zak's website is self-published. He is a notable expert, having written articles about the Russian space program for many respected journals. Personally, I've found his site sufficiently reliable, but it is still self-published and nowhere near the quality of respected aerospace journals. I'm not completely sure if usage of this source would be grounds for failing the GA nomination, but I'd like to encourage the article authors to look for an alternative source which has the same information.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I believe this is still too short for a GA. At least one additional chapter should be inserted.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   A well-illustrated article, although another photo of the module would be nice. Would be possible to find a photo of the module interior?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The prose definitely still needs some work; it is too tedious to read and there are some obvious mistakes which I've pointed out above. The article is also a bit too short. If the prose is reworked to make it more readable, some technical terms are explained a bit more and at least another chapter is added to the article, I think it should pass. Please renominate after these improvements have been made. Nanobear (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)