Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive2

International Space Station

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to put this article up for peer review once again in order to start the ball rolling on getting the article to the stage, finally, of FA. I believe we've dealt with the issues that caused the article's GA delisting, and would love some ideas as to how the article stands, how it can be improved, and what needs to be done to comply with first GA, then FA criteria. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Wronkiew

"The space station is in a Low Earth Orbit and can be seen from Earth with the naked eye; it has an altitude of about 400 km (250 mi) above the surface of the Earth, and travels at an average speed of 27,700 km (17,210 statute miles) per hour, completing 15.7 orbits per day." Recommend de-wikilinking "can be seen from Earth". It's not clear what is being linked to from the text. Separate the visibility and the orbit into two sentenctes. Rewrite to include "it orbits at an altitude" instead of "it has an altitude".
"The ISS is a continuation of several other previously planned space stations; Russia's Mir 2, the US Space Station Freedom, the European Columbus, and Kibō, the Japanese Experiment Module." Is "Kibō" here talking about a space station or a module? The other items in the list are proposed space stations.
"A fifth servicing vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle, is currently planned to enter service in 2009." Recommend replacing this with a more generic "Other servicing vehicles are in various stages of planning."
"It never left the drawing board and, with the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, it was cancelled." That's not entirely true. Mockups were built and several in-space tests were performed of minor components.
"The first section, the Zarya Functional Cargo Block, was put in orbit in November 1998 on a Russian Proton rocket." Launched into orbit.
"US" and "U.S." are both used in this article. Pick one.
The second paragraph of "Origins" doesn't really belong there. The early construction should be moved to "Assembly", and the first expedition should be moved to "Expeditions". Also, there is some duplication between "Origins" and "Assembly".
"Origins" could use more detail. What happened to the name "Alpha"? What about post-Freedom station options A, B, and C? What about the Shuttle-Mir missions?
Could use a wikilink on first mention of "aerospace engineering".
"Over the next two years the station continued to expand, with a Soyuz rocket delivering the Pirs docking compartment and Space Shuttles Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour between them carrying the Destiny laboratory and Quest airlock to orbit, in addition to the station's robot arm, Canadarm2, and several more segments of truss." Rewrite with two or three sentences.
"The ambitious expansion schedule was brought to an abrupt halt, however, following the loss of Space Shuttle Columbia on STS-107." A more descriptive word would be appropriate. "Loss" sounds like a euphemism here.
You should be able to find a good photo of an astronaut with a wrench or something for the "Assembly" section.
"The resulting hiatus in the Space Shuttle program led to a similar hiatus in station assembly until the launch of Discovery on STS-114 in 2005." Hiatus is an odd word and I find its duplication in this sentence jarring.
"The official Return to Assembly was marked by the delivery by Atlantis, flying STS-115, of the station's second set of solar arrays, which were followed by several more truss segments and a third set of arrays on STS-116, STS-117 and STS-118." Why is "Return to Assembly" capitalized? Also, break up the sentence.
"This major expansion of the station's power generating abilities meant that more pressurised modules could be accommodated, and as a result the Harmony node and Columbus European laboratory were added, followed shortly by the first two components of Kibō, the Japanese Experiment Module." Break up into several sentences. Replace "meant that...could be accommodated" with "accommodated".
"Also awaiting launch is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, for several years believed to have been cancelled, but recently manifested on what is currently the final Space Shuttle flight, STS-134." Believed by whom?
"Assembly is expected to be completed by 2011, by which point the station will have a mass in excess of 400 tons." I think you can just say "mass".
"These modules include laboratories, docking compartments, airlocks, nodes and living quarters, nine of which are already in orbit, with the remaining five awaiting launch on the ground." As opposed to where?
I do not like the pressurized module table, specifically the long descriptions. Either rewrite the descriptions to use only a few words each, or reformat the section. I think an alternate format with wide infoboxes alternating with descriptive paragraphs would look nice, but it's up to you.
"Using a high-voltage (130 to 160 volts) distribution line in the U.S. part of the station allows smaller power lines and less weight." Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, see MOS:BETTER#Paragraphs. Start the sentence with "The high-voltage".
"Another slightly different tracking option, Night Glider mode, can be used to reduce the drag slightly by orienting the solar arrays edgewise to the velocity vector." The concept of drag in orbit has not been properly introduced at this point. Also, I would say that it is a completely different tracking mode, or maybe start the sentence with "Another tracking option".
"The ISS Environmental Control and Life Support System provides or controls elements such as atmospheric pressure, oxygen levels, water, and fire extinguishing, among other things." Replace with "fire control".
"The Elektron system generates oxygen aboard the station." Not clear from the text if Elektron is part of ECLSS. Also, it needs to be explained why they are different.
"The highest priority for the life support system is the ISS atmosphere, but the system also collects, processes, and stores waste and water produced and used by the crew." Reference needed for "highest priority".
"For example, the system recycles fluid from the sink, shower, urine, and condensation." Sink and shower are devices, condensation is a physical process, and urine is a fluid. Rewrite the list so the concepts match.
"Activated charcoal filters are the primary method for removing byproducts of human metabolism from the air." Which system uses charcoal filters?
"Normally, a system using several control moment gyroscopes (CMGs) keeps the station oriented, i.e. with Destiny forward of Unity, the P truss on the port side and Pirs on the earth-facing (nadir) side." Rewrite without "i.e.".
"When the CMG system becomes saturated, it can lose its ability to control station attitude." Briefly explain saturation.
"In this event, the Russian Attitude Control System is designed to take over automatically, using thrusters to maintain station attitude and allowing the CMG system to desaturate." Should not be capitalized unless it is a proper name. I suspect that the proper name is written in cyrillic.
"This happened during Expedition 10." Was this event planned or was it an accident? "This happened" is not a good way to start a sentence.
"A graph of altitude over time shows that it drifts down almost 2.5 km per month." This is original research, and an over-simplification.
"While it is being built the altitude is relatively low so that it is easier to fly the Space Shuttle with its big payloads to the space station." Needs a reference. Also, is it constantly at a lower altitude until 2010, or is it boosted higher in between shuttle launches?
"As of 2007, little experimentation other than the study of the long-term effects of microgravity on humans has taken place." Needs to be referenced.
"With four new research modules set to arrive at the ISS by 2010, however, more specialized research is expected to begin." Who is expecting this?
The first four sentences of "Scientific ISS modules" are really repetitive.
"It should provide a generic laboratory as well as ones specifically designed for biology, biomedical research and fluid physics." It should? How could it not?
"It was developed by JAXA in order to function as an observatory and to measure various astronomical data." Just "to". Also, you don't measure data. Really, this whole paragraph is poorly written and needs a rewrite.
"Subjects such as muscle atrophy, bone loss, and fluid shifts are studied with the intention to utilize this data so space colonization and lengthy space travel can become feasible." This could be said with fewer words. Switch it to active voice. Also, replace "utilize" with "use".
Find a photo of combustion in space to add to the research section. Everyone likes pictures of fire.
"The long-term goals of this research are to develop the technology necessary for human-based space and planetary exploration and colonization (including life support systems, safety precautions, environmental monitoring in space), new ways to treat diseases, more efficient methods of producing materials, more accurate measurements than would be impossible to achieve on Earth, and a more complete understanding of the Universe." Break up this long sentence.
"However, in an internal e-mail sent 18 August, 2008 to NASA managers (published 6 September, 2008 in the Orlando Sentinel[26]), Griffin flatly stated his belief that the current US administration has made no viable plan for US crews to participate in the ISS beyond 2011, and that OMB and OSTP are actually seeking its demise." That's a little excessive, and an extraordinary claim. I don't think it is adequately backed up by the referenced sources.
"Griffin believes the only reasonable solution is to extend the operation of the Space Shuttle beyond 2010, but notes that Executive Policy (ie, the White House) is firm that there will be no extension of the shuttle retirement date, and thus no US capability to launch crews into orbit until the Ares I/Orion system becomes operational in 2014 at the very earliest." The referenced source is not sufficient to say what Griffin "believes". I doubt the executive policy (is that a proper name?) says that there will be no domestic crew tranfer capability.
"He does not see purchase of Russian launches for NASA crews as politically viable following the 2008 South Ossetia war, and hopes the new US administration will resolve the issue in 2009 by extending shuttle operations beyond 2010." This is out of date.
"However, Progress transports and the STS-114 shuttle flight took care of this problem." Be more descriptive here.
The first two paragraphs in "Smoke problem" need to be referenced.
"It was later found to be caused by a leak of potassium hydroxide from an oxygen vent." What was caused by the leak, the smoke or the smell? The paragraph then says that potassium hydroxide is odorless, and I don't think it causes smoke.
"In any case, the station's ventilation system was shut down to prevent the spread of smoke or contaminants through the rest of the lab complex." Start with "The station's".
"On November 2, 2006 the payload brought by the Russian Progress M-58 allowed the crew to repair the Elektron using spare parts." Needs a comma after 2006.
"On June 14, 2007 during Expedition 15 and flight day 7 of STS-117's visit to ISS, a computer malfunction on the Russian segments at 06:30 UTC left the station without thrusters, oxygen generation, carbon dioxide scrubber, and other environmental control systems, and caused the temperature on the station to rise." Break up this long sentence.
"Each computer is referred to as a 'lane'." "Lane" should be italicized instead of quoted. See MOS:BOLD#Words_as_words
"By June 15, the primary Russian computers were back online, and talking to the US side of the station by bypassing a circuit." Unnecessary anthropomorphism.
"This was initially a concern, because the European Space Agency uses the same computer systems, supplied by EADS Astrium Space Transportation, for the Columbus Laboratory Module and the Automated Transfer Vehicle." The failed computers on the ISS were not an initial concern?
"Once the root cause was understood, plans were implemented to avoid the problem in the future." Who implemented the plans?
You should be able to find a good image for the torn solar panel section.
"On October 30, 2007 during Expedition 16 and flight day 7 of STS-120's visit to ISS, following the reposition of the P6 truss segment, ISS and Space Shuttle Discovery crew members began the deployment of the trusses' two solar arrays." Avoid "trusses'". Replace with "its two solar arrays" or "two solar arrays on P6".
"The first array deployed without incident, and the second array deployed approximately 80% before astronauts noticed a 76 centimetres (2.5 ft) tear." Should be "76-centimetre", see MOS:HYPHEN. Also, check the article for American/British spelling consistency, see WP:ENGVAR.
"A second, smaller tear was noticed upon further inspection, and the mission's planned spacewalks were completely replanned in mere days to devise a repair." This sounds odd because the article hasn't established that spacewalk planning for ISS missions normally take longer.
"On September 25, 2008, NASA announced significant progress in diagnosing the source of the starboard SARJ problem, and a program to repair it on orbit, beginning with the upcoming STS-126 (Endeavour ) flight, currently expected no earlier than November 16, 2008." Avoid making statements that will quickly go out of date.
"On January 30, 2008, NASA announced that another problem, also on the starboard array side, is believed to have been rectified with the replacement of the Bearing Motor Roll Ring Module (BMRRM) in the Beta Gimbal Assembly (BGA) 1A." It's not clear from the text what problem this is talking about.
The "Major incidents" section is too detailed for a general article about the ISS. Trim out some of the irrelevant detail.
There are some odd things about the "Visiting spacecraft section". The cancelled K-1 Vehicle is given a much longer description than the existing and planned vehicles. The distinction between the "Planned" and "Proposed" sections is not clear.
"All permanent station crews are named "Expedition n", where n is sequentially increased after each expedition." Mathematical terminology is inapproprate here.
The rest of the first paragraph of "Expeditions" reads like a legal contract.
"As of April 11, 2008, it has had 213 (non-distinct) visitors. Mir had 137 (non-distinct) visitors (See Space station)." What is a "non-distinct" visitor?
"The current expedition to ISS is Expedition 18." Avoid statements that will quickly go out of date.
"As a multinational collaborative project, the legal and financial aspects of the ISS are detailed and complex - governing ownership of modules, crewing & utilization of the station, and responsibilities for station resupply." The " - " should be an em dash. See MOS:DASH. Em dash formatting should be consistent throughout the article. Also, merge this sentence with the next paragraph.
"This set the stage for a second layer of agreements, called, Memoranda of Understanding, between NASA and Roskosmos, ESA, CSA and JAXA." Too may commas. "Memoranda of Understanding" is not a complete parenthetic expression.
"These are further split into contractual abligations between nations, trading of partners rights and obligations, and so on." Rewrite to eliminate "and so on". Establish at the beginning of the list if it is going to be complete or not. Don't just terminate the list when you get tired of typing.
"Utilization of the Russian Orbital segment is also negotiated at this level, whereas usage of the other sections of the station have been agreed to be utilised as follows:" American and British spellings of the same word in a single sentence. "Use" is generally preferred over the synonymous "utilize".
"The most cited figure of an estimate of overall costs of the ISS ranges from 35 billion to 100 billion USD." Jumping in with a figure without establishing that the paragraph will be talking about assembly costs is jarring. Also, date the dollars and euros.
The "Criticism" section is not long enough to be split into a new article. Leaving the cleanup tag in place will disqualify the article for GA promotion.
"Some critics, like Robert L. Park, argue that very little scientific research was convincingly planned for the ISS in the first place." Nobody cares who agrees with Robert Park. The only thing of encyclopedic value is to establish what he said and if he is qualified to make such a pronouncement. Eliminate "some critics".
Go through the rest of the section and pin statements made by "critics" and "advocates" on specific people. Either that, or establish their arguments as verifiable fact.
"However, NASA's official list is much narrower and more arcane than dramatic narratives of billions of dollars of spin-offs." Starting this sentence with "however" establishes that it is a counterpoint to some previous statement. However, it is not clear which statement this is in counterpoint to.
"It is therefore debatable whether the ISS, as distinct from the wider space program, will be a major contributor to society." This statement is problematic because it concludes that both arguments have merit without properly supporting that conclusion. At the same time, it is somewhat redundant because the entire section leading up to this was formatted as a debate.
"NASA provides data on forthcoming opportunities for viewing the ISS (and other objects) on the Station Sightings web page, as do the European Space Agency and the independent site Heavens-Above." Move external links to the appropriate section. Viewing opportunities for other objects are outside the scope of this article. Merge this sentence with the previous paragraph.
"As of 2008 there have been six space tourists to the ISS, each paying around US $25 million; they all went there aboard Russian supply missions." They "traveled". Also, Russian supply missions are unmanned.
"There has also been a space wedding when cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko on the station married Ekaterina Dmitrieva, who was in Texas." Avoid starting a sentence with "there has been" when "there" doesn't refer to anything in particuler. Replace with "Also, in the first space wedding,".
"Golf Shot Around The World was an event in which, on an EVA, a special golf ball, equipped with a tracking device, was hit from the station and sent into its own low Earth orbit for a fee paid by a Canadian golf equipment manufacturer to the Russian Space Agency." This long sentence needs to be broken up. The term "Golf Shot Around the World" isn't properly introduced, the paragraph should begin with something more familiar. "The" isn't capitalized in titles.
"The spatial separation from the real center of mass of the ISS, with a level of gravity on the order of 2 to 1,000 millionths of one g (the value varies with the frequency of the disturbance, with the low value occurring at frequencies below 0.1 Hz, and the higher value at frequencies of 100 Hz or more)." "Frequency of the disturbance" needs more explanation.
"The crew typically wakes up at around 7:00 UTC; they work for about ten hours each weekday and five hours each Saturday, with Sundays reserved for relaxation and games, including a modified version of baseball" Missing period at the end of this sentence. Baseball in space has some reader interest. Maybe rename the section "Crew schedule" and give it some more detail.
"Because the sleeping periods between the UTC timezone and the MET usually differ, the ISS crew often has to adjust their sleeping pattern before the shuttle arrives and after it leaves to shift from one timezone to the other, therefore this is called sleepshifting." Eliminate "therefore".
"This does not match the atmosphere on the shuttle, so adjustments are performed during visits." Which way is it adjusted? Which vehicle's atmosphere is adjusted?
The "Paper Airplane Launch" section needs to be fleshed out. If the section title is not a proper name, it should not be capitalized.
"There may soon be origami airplanes launched from the ISS." Avoid starting sentences with "there may be" where "there" doesn't refer to anything in particular. Also, eliminate the wikilink from this section and add a "see also" or "main article" link after the subsection header.
Not enough information about "South Atlantic Anomaly". Either eliminate the link from the "See also" section, or add a short description to explain why someone would want to click on it.
The citation "Orlando Sentinel, Sept 6, 2008, carried by spaceref.com" needs a better title.
News article citations need authors when this information is available.
There are a bunch of citations where "NASA" is listed as both the author and publisher. This is unnecessary.
"Spaceflight Now" and "Revised schedule" need better citations.
Some citations have numbered external links. The external link should have a title.
Usage of "NASA" or "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" should be consistent in the citations.
Check the citation formatting for consistency. There are a number of different styles used here.
No need to specify a citation format if it's just "HTML".
Fix the dead link to NASAexplores.com.
Merge "Interactive/Multimedia" with "External links".
Could use a more specific link to Heavens-Above for ISS data. Also, you only need one of Heavens-Above, n2yo.com, and Spaceweather.com.
Could use a more specific link to ExtremeSpotting.com.

Processing of Wronkiew's Review

OK, I've been working on the article since this review was posted, and I feel I've dealt with the following points:

"The space station is in a Low Earth Orbit and can be seen from Earth with the naked eye; it has an altitude of about 400 km (250 mi) above the surface of the Earth, and travels at an average speed of 27,700 km (17,210 statute miles) per hour, completing 15.7 orbits per day." Recommend de-wikilinking "can be seen from Earth". It's not clear what is being linked to from the text. Separate the visibility and the orbit into two sentenctes. Rewrite to include "it orbits at an altitude" instead of "it has an altitude".
"The ISS is a continuation of several other previously planned space stations; Russia's Mir 2, the US Space Station Freedom, the European Columbus, and Kibō, the Japanese Experiment Module." Is "Kibō" here talking about a space station or a module? The other items in the list are proposed space stations.
"A fifth servicing vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle, is currently planned to enter service in 2009." Recommend replacing this with a more generic "Other servicing vehicles are in various stages of planning."
"The first section, the Zarya Functional Cargo Block, was put in orbit in November 1998 on a Russian Proton rocket." Launched into orbit.
"US" and "U.S." are both used in this article. Pick one.
The second paragraph of "Origins" doesn't really belong there. The early construction should be moved to "Assembly", and the first expedition should be moved to "Expeditions". Also, there is some duplication between "Origins" and "Assembly".
Could use a wikilink on first mention of "aerospace engineering".
"The ambitious expansion schedule was brought to an abrupt halt, however, following the loss of Space Shuttle Columbia on STS-107." A more descriptive word would be appropriate. "Loss" sounds like a euphemism here.
You should be able to find a good photo of an astronaut with a wrench or something for the "Assembly" section.
"The resulting hiatus in the Space Shuttle program led to a similar hiatus in station assembly until the launch of Discovery on STS-114 in 2005." Hiatus is an odd word and I find its duplication in this sentence jarring.
"Also awaiting launch is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, for several years believed to have been cancelled, but recently manifested on what is currently the final Space Shuttle flight, STS-134." Believed by whom?
"These modules include laboratories, docking compartments, airlocks, nodes and living quarters, nine of which are already in orbit, with the remaining five awaiting launch on the ground." As opposed to where?
"Using a high-voltage (130 to 160 volts) distribution line in the U.S. part of the station allows smaller power lines and less weight." Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, see MOS:BETTER#Paragraphs. Start the sentence with "The high-voltage".
"Another slightly different tracking option, Night Glider mode, can be used to reduce the drag slightly by orienting the solar arrays edgewise to the velocity vector." The concept of drag in orbit has not been properly introduced at this point. Also, I would say that it is a completely different tracking mode, or maybe start the sentence with "Another tracking option".
"Normally, a system using several control moment gyroscopes (CMGs) keeps the station oriented, i.e. with Destiny forward of Unity, the P truss on the port side and Pirs on the earth-facing (nadir) side." Rewrite without "i.e.".
"In this event, the Russian Attitude Control System is designed to take over automatically, using thrusters to maintain station attitude and allowing the CMG system to desaturate." Should not be capitalized unless it is a proper name. I suspect that the proper name is written in cyrillic.
"This happened during Expedition 10." Was this event planned or was it an accident? "This happened" is not a good way to start a sentence.
The first four sentences of "Scientific ISS modules" are really repetitive.
"It should provide a generic laboratory as well as ones specifically designed for biology, biomedical research and fluid physics." It should? How could it not?
"It was developed by JAXA in order to function as an observatory and to measure various astronomical data." Just "to". Also, you don't measure data. Really, this whole paragraph is poorly written and needs a rewrite.
Find a photo of combustion in space to add to the research section. Everyone likes pictures of fire.
"On November 2, 2006 the payload brought by the Russian Progress M-58 allowed the crew to repair the Elektron using spare parts." Needs a comma after 2006.
"By June 15, the primary Russian computers were back online, and talking to the US side of the station by bypassing a circuit." Unnecessary anthropomorphism.
You should be able to find a good image for the torn solar panel section.
"On October 30, 2007 during Expedition 16 and flight day 7 of STS-120's visit to ISS, following the reposition of the P6 truss segment, ISS and Space Shuttle Discovery crew members began the deployment of the trusses' two solar arrays." Avoid "trusses'". Replace with "its two solar arrays" or "two solar arrays on P6".
"The first array deployed without incident, and the second array deployed approximately 80% before astronauts noticed a 76 centimetres (2.5 ft) tear." Should be "76-centimetre", see MOS:HYPHEN. Also, check the article for American/British spelling consistency, see WP:ENGVAR.
"A second, smaller tear was noticed upon further inspection, and the mission's planned spacewalks were completely replanned in mere days to devise a repair." This sounds odd because the article hasn't established that spacewalk planning for ISS missions normally take longer.
There are some odd things about the "Visiting spacecraft section". The cancelled K-1 Vehicle is given a much longer description than the existing and planned vehicles. The distinction between the "Planned" and "Proposed" sections is not clear.
"As a multinational collaborative project, the legal and financial aspects of the ISS are detailed and complex - governing ownership of modules, crewing & utilization of the station, and responsibilities for station resupply." The " - " should be an em dash. See MOS:DASH. Em dash formatting should be consistent throughout the article. Also, merge this sentence with the next paragraph.
"Utilization of the Russian Orbital segment is also negotiated at this level, whereas usage of the other sections of the station have been agreed to be utilised as follows:" American and British spellings of the same word in a single sentence. "Use" is generally preferred over the synonymous "utilize".
"NASA provides data on forthcoming opportunities for viewing the ISS (and other objects) on the Station Sightings web page, as do the European Space Agency and the independent site Heavens-Above." Move external links to the appropriate section. Viewing opportunities for other objects are outside the scope of this article. Merge this sentence with the previous paragraph.
"As of 2008 there have been six space tourists to the ISS, each paying around US $25 million; they all went there aboard Russian supply missions." They "traveled". Also, Russian supply missions are unmanned.
"There has also been a space wedding when cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko on the station married Ekaterina Dmitrieva, who was in Texas." Avoid starting a sentence with "there has been" when "there" doesn't refer to anything in particuler. Replace with "Also, in the first space wedding,".
"Because the sleeping periods between the UTC timezone and the MET usually differ, the ISS crew often has to adjust their sleeping pattern before the shuttle arrives and after it leaves to shift from one timezone to the other, therefore this is called sleepshifting." Eliminate "therefore".
Not enough information about "South Atlantic Anomaly". Either eliminate the link from the "See also" section, or add a short description to explain why someone would want to click on it.
The citation "Orlando Sentinel, Sept 6, 2008, carried by spaceref.com" needs a better title.
Fix the dead link to NASAexplores.com.
Merge "Interactive/Multimedia" with "External links".
Could use a more specific link to Heavens-Above for ISS data. Also, you only need one of Heavens-Above, n2yo.com, and Spaceweather.com.
Could use a more specific link to ExtremeSpotting.com.

These points, however, I don't feel need addressing:

"The official Return to Assembly was marked by the delivery by Atlantis, flying STS-115, of the station's second set of solar arrays, which were followed by several more truss segments and a third set of arrays on STS-116, STS-117 and STS-118." Why is "Return to Assembly" capitalized? Also, break up the sentence.

I capitalised 'Return to Assembly' because NASA does too - for instance, with regards to the Return to Flight missions. As for breaking up the sentence, I'm not a fan of simple sentences, and a cmplex sentence such as this summarised very nicely the quick succession with which the ITS components were launched.

"Assembly is expected to be completed by 2011, by which point the station will have a mass in excess of 400 tons." I think you can just say "mass".

Not really - the ISS's mass will be larger than 400 tons, and to say it will be 400 tons exactly is misleading.

That's not what I meant, but I think what I wanted to do is an abuse of the language. Your version is better. Wronkiew (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the pressurized module table, specifically the long descriptions. Either rewrite the descriptions to use only a few words each, or reformat the section. I think an alternate format with wide infoboxes alternating with descriptive paragraphs would look nice, but it's up to you.

This table has been discussed in great detail before (see here), and was based on the one in the Mir article.

Still, the table wastes a lot of screen space. This makes it difficult to compare rows of the table. If you can't compare rows, the table is just a quick and easy page layout scheme. I find this suboptimal, but not a big deal. Wronkiew (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this a bit as well... What if we turned it into a type of {{episode list}} table ?

Assembly flight	Module	Launch date	Launch vehicle	Nation	Mass
1A/R	Zarya (FGB)	1998-11-20	Proton-K	Russia (Builder) USA (Financier)	19,323 kg (42,600 lb)
1A/R	Provided electrical power, storage, propulsion, and guidance during initial assembly, now serves as a storage module (both inside the pressurized section and in the externally mounted fuel tanks).
2A	Unity (Node 1)	1998-12-04	Space Shuttle Endeavour, STS-88	USA	11,612 kg (25,600 lb)
2A	First node module, connecting the American section of the station to the Russian section (via PMA-1). Provides berthing locations for the Z1 truss, Quest airlock, Destiny laboratory and Node 3.

Note that I didn't spent much time on backgroundcolors etc yet, but i'm sure everyone understands the idea here. Note that I dropped one of the images per row btw. I think they add too much clutter. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good; although I do like the extra images, showing the evolving station as it changes. Colds7ream (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also swap the assembly flight and module name fields around - probably that'd make more sense? Colds7ream (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Wronkiew (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The ISS Environmental Control and Life Support System provides or controls elements such as atmospheric pressure, oxygen levels, water, and fire extinguishing, among other things." Replace with "fire control".

It doesn;t 'control' fire, per se - if a fire starts, it'll extinguish it, but otherwise there isn't anything to control.

The phrase "fire extinguishing" is awkward. If "fire control" is not accurate, then perhaps the list could be split into two. One list could contain "things", and another "actions". Wronkiew (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's that - I've replaced it with 'fire detection and suppression, the terminology used on the ECLSS diagram. Colds7ream (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"On September 25, 2008, NASA announced significant progress in diagnosing the source of the starboard SARJ problem, and a program to repair it on orbit, beginning with the upcoming STS-126 (Endeavour ) flight, currently expected no earlier than November 16, 2008." Avoid making statements that will quickly go out of date.

We can just remove that entire last byline and the "upcoming" word. STS-126 will launch when it will launch, people can track that article. Not that it matters much, because the whole line will need editing once that mission is under way I guess. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The current expedition to ISS is Expedition 18." Avoid statements that will quickly go out of date.

The station is constantly changing as assembly continues - in these cases, it's hard not to put down statements such as these.

There are some ways you can reduce the out-of-date statement problem. You could eliminate "upcoming" from the first sentence. In the second, about the only thing you can do is indicate when "current" is, for example "As of November 2008, the current expedition ...". See WP:DATED. Wronkiew (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to continue to work on the other points, and look forward to your response to this feedback. Colds7ream (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From above

Check the citation formatting for consistency. There are a number of different styles used here.
- I agree, and that's always a problem with larger articles like this. I will work on standardizing the references. Ariel♥Gold 14:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not standardize the references here (or anywhere) by adding an "author" field and duplicating the information already present in another field. If you would like to standardize the refs, great, but duplicating information does not help anyone, readers of the articles or developers of the articles. Use the fields in references for which there is information available, but do not present that very same information in multiple fields. References should have enough usable information but not duplicate items. Lets present the references as easy to use and straight forward. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 22:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough information about "South Atlantic Anomaly". Either eliminate the link from the "See also" section, or add a short description to explain why someone would want to click on it.
- I actually did remove this from the See also section a while back, but on further reflection, it does affect the station. However, because the connection is unclear, it should be removed from See also, and integrated as a wiki link directly into the article with a mention of solar radiation exposure. See also should be reserved for items that are not already linked in the article, but relate directly to it in some way. Ariel♥Gold 14:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I think

I still think we need to tackle some issues. I was thinking about the structure of the article, and I feel that it is a bit overoriented towards the station itself as opposed to the Space Station mission. I propose the following "reorder" of sections.

Lead (shorten somewhat)

Origins

Space station
 move some of the lead to this section (China, Brazil,prize)
- Assembly
- Pressurized modules
- Power supply
- Attitude control
- Altitude control
- Microgravity
- Atmosphere

Life on the space station
- Expeditions
- Crew schedule
- Sleeping
- Eating
- Clothing
- Toiletry

Scientific research
- Scientific ISS modules
- Areas of research

Future of the ISS

Visiting spacecraft

Legal and financial aspects
 Criticism move to Legal and financial

Miscellany
- Sightings
- Space tourism
- ISS golf event
- Paper aeroplane launch
- Major incidents

See also
References
External links

We should also find a way to shorten the Infobox a bit in my opinion. It's HUGE. Can some of that data not be moved to a "statistics/figures" section at the bottom of the article ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That structure looks grand - I particularly like the split into Station, Crew and Science segments. A couple of points; firstly, the infobox is indeed very large, but I really don't like statistics sections in the main body of an article - I think once we've expanded the origins section everything'll fit more, plus it puts all the vital data in one place. Second, the lead is quite large, but considering the size of the rest of the article, I feel its appropriate, plus there's not really that much that we can remove. Finally, it's great to see more folks taking an interest in this - we can do a good job here, and finally get the article the FA it deserves. By the way, the new pressurised modules table looks AWESOME! Colds7ream (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following no dissenting voices, I've rearranged the parts of the article that we currently have into this structure - the images could probably do with being rearranged too, as they seem quite clustered now... Colds7ream (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass by Wronkiew

In general, try to avoid passive verbs like "is", "has", or "had". In several sections of this article the reliance on these verbs is noticeable, particularly in the lead.
"Prince of Asturias Award" bugs me. I would like to know how relevant or exclusive an award it is without having to click on the wikilink.
- The whole award annoys me. Is it truly the only award ever for the ISS? --TheDJ (talk • contribs)
Obviously, "Origins" has to be expanded before this article goes anywhere.
- Indeed. but it's hard to explain without getting wordy (See Space Station Freedom article :D ) --TheDJ (talk • contribs)
  - How's that? Colds7ream (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "spacelab" is a real word.
- Within NASA it is, obviously stemming from the Spacelab program. but we could reword it i guess.
Mention in the lead that Jules Verne is an unmanned spacecraft. --TheDJ (talk • contribs)
- We'd better rewrite that section then. Progress is unmanned as well of course. --TheDJ (talk • contribs)
It would be a good idea to have someone unfamiliar with spaceflight review the lead to make sure it is understandable by the largest possible audience.
Capitalization of "Space Shuttle" should be consistent throughout the article.
- This is not as easy as it seems actually, it depends wether you refer to the NAME (of the program, or an individual shuttle), or to it being simply a "transport vehicle". It requires some proper grammer analyses. --TheDJ (talk • contribs)
"When assembly is complete the ISS will have a pressurised volume of approximately 1,000 m³." This needs an English unit conversion.
"2000 also saw the arrival of two segments of the station's Integrated Truss Structure, the Z1 and P6 truss, together providing the embryonic station with communications, guidance, electrical grounding (on Z1) and power via a pair of solar array wings (on P6)." Never start a sentence with digits.
"As of July 2008, the station consists of ten pressurised modules, in addition to all but one of the components of the Integrated Truss Structure." Unnecessarily wordy. Replace with something like "and all but one component".
"Assembly is expected to be completed by 2011, by which point the station will have a mass in excess of 400 tons." Could use a wikilink for tonnage. Also needs a conversion for English units.
In the pressurized module table, which looks great by the way, the launch vehicle entry should not include the mission number. Alternatively, you could head the column "Launch vehicle/mission" and maybe find mission numbers for the Proton launches. Yet another idea would be to move the Shuttle mission numbers into the assembly flight column.
- I'll see if I can find the Russian flight numbers (they they tend to be hard to track down) --TheDJ (talk • contribs)
  - I'd disagree with that statement, due to the complex nature of the space shuttle system - technically, the 'Space Shuttle' as an entity is the complete shuttle stack - orbiter, ET and SRBs, and its this complete system that is identified with an STS number. For instance, STS-125 is currently slated to be made up of OV-104 (Atlantis), ET-130 and two SRBs. As a result, the complete launch vehicle is technically STS-125, with the Space Shuttle Atlantis making up a part of that. This also applies here - Harmony was launched by STS-120, a component of which was the Space Shuttle Discovery. Colds7ream (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some flight numbers for the Proton launches at List of Proton launches. STS numbers being vehicles instead of missions may be correct, but it's a very uncommon interpretation. The article on STS-120, for example, consistently refers to STS-120 as a mission number. Also, consider: NASA prepares a shuttle for STS-42, and they drop ET-13 and break it. They have to place ET-14 in the stack instead. Do they use a different STS number for the stack? I contend that the only critical part of the STS stack is the Shuttle. This makes the STS number synonymous with mission numbers. Anyway, if this is an issue at all, it's a minor one, unlikely to come up at FAC. Wronkiew (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice, but a lot of work, to rotate the module images in the table to portrait format.
"The laboratory is the largest single ISS module, and contains ten International Standard Payload Racks." This bold statement needs a reference.
- We'd better explain a bit how all the modules use standard bays that can fit any of these racks and that the racks are regurly moved --TheDJ (talk • contribs)
Split the pressurized module table into flown and planned modules. That way the planned modules can be tagged appropriately.
- There is a "seperator" line, which I might change into a "subheader" --TheDJ (talk • contribs)
"The array is about 375 m² in area and 58 metres (190 ft) long." Needs a conversion for square feet. Also there are some "km"s that need mile conversions.
TrekUnited.com is not a reliable source. I was not able to find another source to support the claim that the ISS will be boosted higher after assembly is complete. Sorry.
- I'll try to find something for that. (The reason is quite simple and logical to spacefolk, so it might be hard to find a ref) --TheDJ (talk • contribs)
  - Well, I just spoke with Chris Bergon of NSF, and it turns out that we were actually quite wrong here - COTS, Progress and even Orion all require the ISS to be at her current altitude range, so she won't be being reboosted to a much higher altitude after all. Colds7ream (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what the disturbance frequency has to do with microgravity. What causes this disturbance? Is the disturbance only felt if you are not at the center of mass? Is the frequency related to the orbit? Is the sensation of this disturbance like hearing a million voices crying out and then silenced?

More later.

Merge the Atmosphere and Life support sections.
Avoid using the symbol "&" unless it is in a quote.
"The Elektron system generates oxygen aboard the station." Where is the Elektron system located on the ISS?
"The ISS Environmental Control and Life Support System provides or controls elements such as atmospheric pressure, fire detection & suppression, oxygen levels and water supply, among other things." Redundant.
"The highest priority for the life support system is the ISS atmosphere ..." Which life support system is this referring to?
"Activated charcoal filters are the primary method for removing byproducts of human metabolism from the air." This subject in this sentence is not properly introduced. There needs to be a bridge sentence or phrase to relate it to the life support systems previously mentioned in the paragraph.
"All permanent station crews are named 'Expedition n', where n is sequentially increased after each expedition." I still think that algebra terminology is inappropriate here. This sentence may not even be necessary.
Separate the definitions of Expeditions and Increments into two paragraphs. Both terms, especially "Increment", should be treated as technical jargon. Assume that the reader is not familiar with them.
"The International Space Station is the most-visited spacecraft in the history of space flight." Reference needed.
"As of April 11 2008, it has had 213 (non-distinct) visitors." Reference needed. Also, this is missing a comma.
"Mir had 137 (non-distinct) visitors (See Space station)." Reference needed. Why would I want to see Space station? Is it being used as a reference for the number of visitors? Wikipedia is not a reliable source for the purpose of writing Wikipedia articles.
"This is roughly equidistant between its two control centres in Houston and Moscow." Something tells me this is original research.
"The crew then breakfasts, and takes part in a daily planning conference with Mission Control on the ground, before starting work at around 08:10." Not a compound sentence, no comma needed after "breakfasts".
"The first scheduled exercise of the day follows, after which the crew continues work until 13:05, at which point they have a one-hour lunch break." Too repetitive, time for a which burning.
Check double and single quote usage for consistency. Single quotes should be used inside double quotes.
"There are also a number of planned expansions that will be implemented to study quantum physics and cosmology." Avoid using "there" as the subject of a sentence if it doesn't refer to a specific place. Also, "implemented" is redundant.
"The Columbus module is another research facility, designed by the ESA for the ISS." Who built it?
The zero-g fire photo is left aligned under a sub-section header, which the MoS says not to do.
"Subjects such as muscle atrophy, bone loss, and fluid shifts are studied with the intention to utilize this data so space colonization and lengthy space travel can become feasible." Utilize should be replaced by use. I think the link between space colonization and weightlessness is wrong, or needs a reference if it is correct.
The reference link at the end of the first paragraph in "Areas of research" is broken.
"NASA would also like to study prominent problems in physics." This is too informal.
Obviously, the jargon cleanup tag in the "Future of the ISS" section needs to be addressed before the article goes anywhere.
Too much weight given to one leaked NASA email in the "Future of the ISS" section.
"'The International Space Station is now a stepping stone on the way,' says Griffin, 'rather than being the end of the line'." Should be past tense.
The first paragraph of the "Future of the ISS" section is lifted, with minor changes, from a statement by Michael Griffin. Legally that is fine, as NASA material is public domain. However, this creates a conflict of interest problem because Griffin is an employee of NASA, which manages the station. The text should be included as a block quote, with new text added that ties it in with the rest of the section.
"On September 7, NASA released a statement ..." This should be a block quote. Also, September 7 of what year?
If you have to qualify the author of a source as "assumed", it's not a reliable source.
"In an internal email leaked ..." is not very encyclopedic in tone.
There may be other problems with the "Future of the ISS" section. I'm moving on.
The list of visiting spacecraft might work better as a table.
Check that date formatting is consistent throughout the article. Fix "2008-11-18" in the "Currently docked" section and de-wikify. Also fix "... treaty signed on January 28 1998 by fifteen ...".
"These are further split into contractual obligations between nations, trading of partners rights and obligations, and so on." Either give a complete list, or say at the beginning of the list that it is incomplete.
Check for British vs. American spelling inconsistencies, for example "utilize" vs. "utilise".
"Use of the Russian Orbital segment is also negotiated at this level, whereas usage the other sections of the station have been agreed to be utilised as follows:" Too repetitive.
A table might work well for the module use percentages.

More later

"ESA, the only agency actually stating potential overall costs on its website, estimates €100 billion." Is this estimate for the total cost, or for ESA's portion? Discussion of the contents of ESA's website feels out of place.
"Due to the size of the International Space Station, which is the size of an American football field, and particularly due to the large reflective area offered by its solar panels, ground based observation of the station is possible with the naked eye if one is within 63 degrees latitude." Repetitive.
"The task was supposed to be performed on Expedition 13, but the event was postponed, and took place on Expedition 14." Postponement of the golf event isn't very relevant. Maybe this section could be merged with descriptions of other commercial arrangements. Wasn't there an event where Radio Shack sent up some gadgets? I think there was also a pizza delivery to the ISS.
"Miscellany" is not an effective section name. It should be obvious from the list of section names where you might find a particular piece of information.
"If one of the planes survives to Earth, it will have made the longest flight ever by a paper plane, traversing some 400km (250 mi), and will have demonstrated the feasibility of slow-speed, low-friction atmospheric reentry." Needs a space between the number and the unit.
"Because the ISS had not been visited by a Space Shuttle for an extended period, a larger than planned amount of waste had accumulated, temporarily hindering station operations in 2004, but automated Progress transports and the STS-114 mission resolved the problem." Not very precise.
"Potassium hydroxide is odorless and the smell reported by Williams more likely was associated with an overheated rubber gasket in the Elektron system." This sounds like original research and needs a reference.
"On November 2 2006, the payload brought by the Russian Progress M-58 allowed the crew to repair the Elektron using spare parts." Needs a comma before the year. Also, this sentence doesn't make any sense. Was the system repaired using spares? Were replacement parts brought up on the Progress ship? Was it some combination of the two?
"On June 14 2007 during Expedition 15 and flight day 7 of STS-117's visit to ISS, a computer malfunction on the Russian segments at 06:30 UTC left the station without thrusters, oxygen generation, carbon dioxide scrubber, and other environmental control systems, and caused the temperature on the station to rise." Too many "and"s in one sentence. Also, needs commas before and after "2007".
The last two sentences of the first paragraph of the "Computer failures" section define a bunch of terms like "navigation computer system" and "lane", but then the paragraph ends before they are used. The terms should be defined closer to where they are used, if they are at all.
"Secondary systems were still offline, and further work was needed." Redundant.
"NASA suggested that the overcurrent protection circuits designed to safeguard each computer from power spikes were at fault, and may have been tripped due to increased interference, or 'noise,' from the station's plasma environment related to the addition of the new starboard trusses and solar arrays." Kind of off-topic. NASA suggested something as part of a standard troubleshooting process that turned out to be wrong. Stating it isn't necessary to understand what the real problem was.
"On October 30, 2007 during Expedition 16 and flight day 7 of STS-120's visit to ISS, following the reposition of the P6 truss segment, ISS and Space Shuttle Discovery crew members began the deployment of the two solar arrays on the truss." Needs a comma after the "2007".
"The first array deployed without incident, and the second array deployed approximately 80% before astronauts noticed a 76 centimetre (2.5 ft) tear." Needs a hyphen. Also, approximately can be replaced by the shorter word about without changing the meaning.
"A second, smaller tear was noticed upon further inspection, and the mission's spacewalks were completely replanned in mere days to devise a repair - normally such spacewalks take several months to plan and are settled upon well in advance." The spaced dash " - " should be replaced by an em dash.
"During STS-120, a problem was detected in the starboard Solar Alpha Rotary Joint (SARJ) which, together with a similar device on the port side of the station's truss structure, rotates the large solar arrays to keep them facing the Sun while the ISS's main body axis remains horizontal, pointing forward in the direction of orbital motion." This sentence is too long to be easily read. Also, this level of explanation of why the SARJ exists is not necessary to understand the rest of the section. Move the explanation to the "Power supply" section.
"The joint is currently locked in place, and currently the station appears to have sufficient operating power to carry out its near-term science program with only modest impact on operations." This sounds like original research.
"On September 25 2008, NASA announced significant progress in diagnosing the source of the starboard SARJ problem, and a programme to repair it on orbit, beginning with the flight of the Space Shuttle Endeavour on the current STS-126 mission, which launched on 15 November 2008." Two different date formats in the same sentence. Also, the "2008" needs a comma before it.
"The crew will carry out servicing of both the starboard and port SARJs, lubricating both bearings and replacing the remaining 11 Trundle Bearings in the starboard SARJ." Inconsistent. Are there two bearings or 11? If there are 11 or 22, which two are being lubricated?
Check for date formatting inconsistencies in the citations.
Two separate and different citations for "Breathing Easy on the Space Station"
Citations should at least provide the name of a responsible person or organization. Some citations include the organization name but as part of the title, which is not consistent with the other citations.
Several web and news article citations need publication dates, for example "Oxygen Regeneration Restored At ISS".

I have noticed some big improvements in the article over the last couple of weeks, especially from Colds7ream, TheDJ, and ArielGold. Keep up the good work! Wronkiew (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there?

Well, its taken a while, but as far as I can see, apart from a few minor points, we're more-or-less there; what's the general consensus on closing this review, moving any outstanding points to a to-do list, and going forward with Good Article Nomination? Many thanks to everyone - particularly Wronkiew; this review has been absolutely fantastic. :-D Colds7ream (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having no dissenting comments, I'm closing this Peer Review - many, many thanks to all who assisted - the article's looking far better now than it did a month ago! Onward to Good Article Nomination! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]