Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive5

International Space Station

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to put the ISS article up for PR once again as a prelude to a fourth FAC, in an effort to prevent the troubles we've had with the last three. The plan is to iron out every single niggle we can find, so as to be able to present an article for FAC that is as near to 'perfect' as is possible in the Wiki framework. As a result, I've messaged each editor who commented in one of the recent PRs, GANs and FACs, in addition to WikiProject Human spaceflight. What I'd like is for everyone to state whether they feel their original concerns have been dealt with, if they have any new concerns, and if they feel the article will meet the FA criteria. This will, hopefully, give us some confidence and a reasonable support base at FAC if the article does meet the requirements. Your comments are greatly appreciated! Colds7ream (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PRs: 3, 4, 5
GANs: 4
FACs: 1, 2, 3

Question I looked at my oppose back in March - it was based on the fact that there is an abundance of non-web material that was not consulted for this article. Entire books have been written on the station, but none of them had been consulted. The article was based primarily on websites, etc. How has this been rectified? Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've cited a few books where they contained relevant content - for instance the current (as of 25 September 2009) refs 23, 32 and 40. We've also gone out and found several relevant papers, such as current refs 33, 61, 62, 69, 74 and 112, and, in a few cases, some original source material, such as the official Memoranda of Understanding between nations (refs 79-81), in addition to the odd newspaper article. We've also added several non-NASA websites to the list. The trouble, as mentioned previously, is that, given the ongoing nature of the ISS, published works become quite outdated very quickly; for instance, a search for 'International Space Station' on Amazon.co.uk ([1]) yields four published books (that aren't reports). Two were published prior to the Columbia accident and thus are of little use to us, one is in use in the article, leaving only one that we could possibly add (which costs £20). Colds7ream (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall comments:

While it is in a good state, I think the lead could perhaps better serve as a succinct summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. The entire second paragraph of the lead lists the participants, while this is barely mentioned in the article. I'd expect a summary arrangement to show one paragraph per major section and at least one sentence for each important subsection.
There are three consecutive short sub-sections: Attitude control, Altitude control and Microgravity. Perhaps these could be combined into a single section titled "Orbit"?
I'd still like to see a little more coverage of safety issues, such as debris impacts, EVAs and radiation.[2][3][4][5][6]

Thanks for addressing most of my concerns in the prior review.—RJH (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Righto - I'll get working on these points as soon as. Colds7ream (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the attitude and altitude control sections into a new 'orbit control' section - not sure about adding the microgravity section as well, though... Colds7ream (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also rehashed the lead - that looking better? Colds7ream (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and now I've added a section on safety! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I searched for publications about ISS and some results are here. One book^{[dead link‍]} was published in 2008. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - that's the one I referred to earlier - unfortunately I cannot justify spending £20 just to add some book references to an article here, when I have plenty of medical textbooks to buy. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if anyone else fancies buying it, please do add it to the reference list! Colds7ream (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick image comments: Hi, I am a tad busy these days, so I cannot check all the images but I note that the following images are still used since my last check and repeat the issues here.

The Canadian flag in the logo: A recent design that would still be within 50-year Crown Copyrights. The Coat of Arms are copyrighted, so what states this flag's design to be "free"? The Maple leaf is certainly not simple geometric shapes or such?

I'd invite you to look over the licensing details of File:Flag of Canada.svg, which suggests that we're OK as far as that's concerned. Colds7ream (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg: as stated, it is quite hard to believe that Soviet space agency's Mir cosmonauts (who took the picture as stated by NASA, and not NASA as stated on Commons) surrendered their copyrights to the US agency during a time when relationships between the countries were frosty. My email to NASA received no reply (as stated on their site, emails are not a good way to obtain replies). Phone calls would get better results but I am neither in the States nor in a convenient time zone to pursue this approach, so efforts should be pursued by American editors to ensure the photo is clear for use by all. Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The prose needs to be improved before the article is renominated. The grammar is generally okay, but the flow of the prose is poor, which makes the article a chore, rather than a pleasure to read. It is not engaging. There is a problem with over-linking and (Italy, Earth, Moon and Sun, are examples. The writing is often vague and I lost count of the number of occurrences of "various" and "variety". Many time-sensitive phrases also occur such as "8 years and 329 days" and "currently aboard". Other odd sentences and phrases include:

"The International Space Station... is the largest satellite ever launched into orbit." The source does not say this, and given that the ISS was assembled in orbit, this statement lacks credibility.
This is odd, "This means that scientists on the ground have swift access to their data and can modify experiments or fly new ones as and when required, benefits generally unavailable on specialized unmanned spacecraft." I would avoided the expression, "this means that" and what exactly does "fly new ones" mean?
Here "conduct science daily" I think "scientific experiments" would be better.

And in the same sentence there is "a wide variety" and "as well as". In fact the whole article would benefit from checking for redundancy, I recall having seen at least one occurrence of "in order to".

There is inconsistency (and WP:MoS breaches) for example in the use of all three of U.S., US and United States of America. The whole article should be checked against the MoS.
Here, "Finally, in addition to the scientific and research aspects of the station", the "finally" is redundant.
In this sentence "Researchers are investigating the relation of the near-weightless environment on the ISS to the evolution...", the "relation of" does not properly connect to the rest of the sentence.
This sentence illustrates nicely the problems with the lack of logical flow common in the article. "Several planned pressurised modules have been cancelled, including the Centrifuge Accommodations Module, for producing varying levels of artificial gravity, the Habitation Module, which was to serve as the station's living quarters (sleep stations are now spread throughout the station), and several Russian modules, including two Russian Research Modules, planned to be used for general experimentation." Breaking this into smaller sentences would help and please try to not to cram too many facts into single phrases and sentences—this makes the prose difficult to read and dull.
Here, "In this configuration, as shown in the image to the right, the beta gimbal was used for the main solar tracking," I suggest not referring directly to images. It distracts readers from the prose, and sooner or later, another editor will decide that the image in question looks better elsewhere in the article.
Here, "A typical day for the crew begins with a wake-up at 06:00, followed by post-sleep activities and a morning inspection of the station." Please must we have "post-sleep activities"? What on earth does this mean? The same with "137 non-distinct visitors".

James, I hope these comments are useful, please don't take this personally but I think the article would benefit from fresh input—you might have grown too close to it. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Graham. I'm well aware that I'm far too indoctrinated by the prose, but unfortunately whenever I ask for outside assistance all anyone does is say 'you needs to change this' - to what, exactly? Surely it would be simpler in these cases for the reviewer to make the changes themselves instead of expending words listing problems and then hoping another editor (who inevitably ends up being me) will make the changes. I've got to the point now where I more-or-less can't improve the prose, as its mostly my own. I need a new editor to help out with this prose and give it a major sort-out instead of either listing endless issues or making ridiculously minor changes. I was hoping one of the many editors I messaged about this review could help in this area. Colds7ream (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to review the article not to copy-edit it. I understand your frustration, given so many failed nominations, but many of the points I made above are examples of problems that occur throughout the article. I would love to help out and I have no problems with being bold, but I don't have the spare time. I am amazed by the apparent lack of interest shown by members of the human spaceflight project. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Graham, I've been doing some work, and I think I've dealt with your points 2, 3, the US-specific part of 4, 5, 7 and 8 - how am I doing? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell—very well. The article is much improved and were this a FAC, it would be one of those where I am prepared to comment and help out rather than oppose. This does not mean that I still think a lot needs to be improved, just a few tweaks here and there. I have been bold and deleted most of all those occurrences of "various" but if I have altered the meaning, I apologise.Graham Colm ^Talk 15:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! :-) Fair enough on the 'various', thanks for clearing them out. Anything else I can be getting on with while waiting for replies from others? Colds7ream (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Get rid of "currently" and "now". An article is not a newswire, updated daily. Use formulations such as By September 2009 the ISS was x ...
There is some argot: "de-orbit". Plain English is better.
Sentence fragment: "Does not include consortium satellites or multi-national satellites."
A copyeditor would help reduce the wordiness.

Best wishes. Kablammo (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

Just to keep everyone updated:

I've put in a request for a thorough copyedit at WP:GOCE in an effort to do something about the prose - let's see what they do! :-)
I've been sent a copy of the book that was published in 2008, and will get working on integrating it into the article.
I'm planning on sorting out the lead as soon as I get a free afternoon to give it some justice. I'll also do something about safety issues when I get a chance.

In the meantime, anyone got any comments on issues not already covered? Colds7ream (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've given the lead a going over and sorted out some of the smaller niggles people were bringing up - looking better? Colds7ream (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]