Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Shuttle program/archive1
Can anybody help review this article? I hope we get enough peer review so we can have less objection when Feature Article nomination come. --Kiba 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Just had a quick look at it, and the thing that strikes me is the lack of references (or at least, references marked as such). Personaly I like using the style recomended at Wikipedia:Footnote3. Remember that citing your sources means others can verify the article with ease. An uncited article can sometimes be mistaken for original research. WegianWarrior 09:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- It could discuss in more depth what role astronauts play in the takeoff, operation, and landing. Their training, life-support, etc... A lot of the complexity of the space shuttle has to do with its ability to take astronauts into space and support them for a period of time. Also, "It carries large payloads to various orbits, provides crew rotation for the International Space Station (ISS), and performs servicing missions." could be expanded more in the "applications" section. What kind of satellites, experiments, or supplies? What about the time period that its cargo manifest was a government secret because it was carrying military satellites? I apologize if some of this information is already included or linked to. johnpseudo 18:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- full disclosure: i am radically opposed to the use of the space shuttle. don't be miffed at my terse list below. just trying to keep it short.
- article looks good and tight visually. opening pic is beautifully processed. nice colors. it's not the only one.
- my biggest criticism of the article is that it defends the shuttle program's failures almost as if it's government/NASA propaganda. i could give you several earfuls for a criticism section (called Retrospect now, i guess), including some details from richard feynman's book partly on the subject.
- is the space shuttle truly the "first spacecraft designed for partial reusability", or is it the first regularly operated (non-test) such spacecraft?
- first paragraph seems mired in possibly unnecessary company lineage.
- suggest a brutal sweep to eliminate some fluff words such as "current", "outstanding", and phrases like "at least two months and possibly more", " in reality", "in fact", "it stood to reason" (POV).
- overall, the article sounds too analytic to me -- too involved in the subject.
- will reentry and standard landing be covered? SaltyPig 04:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)