Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive6

International Space Station edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

The article went to FA status some time ago, by an editor who has been too busy to maintain it recently. It's become a stagnant outdated patchwork of edits and errors. I "Get Away With"(my own words) fixing entire sections, making new sections, bringing the article up to date, and making it much more Neutral, so long as the lead paragraph is left alone, it's about the only paragraph some people read, and they don't like updates or changes. However I lack ideas on how to encourage other editors to use the talkpage. I set a poor example because I simply fix problems I see without always using the talkpage first, however I DO explain what I am doing, I DO ask for support and comments, but the talkpage often feels more like a personal blog, because so much is one sided. When I articulate a reason for something, it's sometimes countered with 'I don't like it that way' so I simply leave it, to keep the peace, and because there is no-one to turn a critical eye on these items, they turn into holes in prose, holes in continuity, errors that right now, are so plain for me to see.(and reference, but what's the point? it just makes the talk-page list longer still, how does that fix the article?)

The article would in no way survive a FAR request I'm sure, but I don't want to make one for two reasons, one, it may cause ill feelings because people would think the motive is juvenile rather than caring about wiki principles, if there are principles that are not stood up for, they become irrelevant trivia. I've seen other FA's and I so wish I could inspire other editors to help me make this page at least half as good. Two, it wastes time and energy that is better spent simply fixing the article.

My request is twofold, PR, and I don't have the skill to bring other editors on board, can anyone help me in this regard also. Thanks, Penyulap_talk 06:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here is a draft for the first paragraph, which gives better context, sucks up a lot of facts in a few lines, and I'd like to know how is the prose ? It is not complete or referenced(I can&will), but there is another older draft on the talkpage also, if that's a problem. Other correct facts in the current lead would get sucked up in the other two or three paragraphs of the lead.

The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable, artificial satellite in Low Earth Orbit. The ISS is the the 11th space station successfully launched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Cosmos, Skylab, and Mir space stations. The name Zarya meaning Dawn in Russian was given to the first module, launched in 1998, because it signified the dawn of a new era of international cooperation in space. The ISS program combines two space station projects, the Russian Space Agency MIR-II and NASA's Freedom, with Laboratory modules from the Japanese and European space agencies, and robotics provided by the Canadaian space agency. These 5 agencies are the 5 major partners of the project. The main purpose of the ISS is to conduct scientific research utilizing the space enviroment and/or microgravity.

It looks a bit Russian-focused for people who are used to western media, but keep in mind NASA's stance IS currently changing, the budget (see in the cost section graph), they are using an American based International satellite launch company to take over shipping their supplies, and in Jan/Feb this year began looking for other groups that can take over management of most science on board. Keep in mind each country focuses on it's own contribution and downplays other countries.

The full RFC of the partial draft is here on the talkpage. Penyulap_talk 09:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall comments: Well the article doesn't appear to be in that bad a shape. I went through the article and performed various copy edits. Hopefully those meet with general approval. Here's a few issues:

'...they had completed 159...' Left me wondering 159 of what? Tasks? Components? The number of listed modules seems much lower than this total.
For the table in the 'Pressurised modules' section, I'd move the 'Notes' column one column to the left and combine it with the first row for each module; this will provide more room for the text. You might also consider combining the 'Module' and 'Isolated view' columns so that each of the module names are located below their respective images.
I think the paragraph that begins "As a promotional outreach and for stress relief, crew..." doesn't belong in the 'Structure' section. It should probably be merged with the related material in the 'Education and Cultural Outreach'.
The 'Microgravity' and 'Sightings' sections also don't belong in a section about the ISS 'Structure'. Microgravity may belong in the 'Purpose' section, while 'Sightings' could perhaps be placed with 'Station operations'.
"2 722 kg" and "22 000 meals" => the Wikipedia standard is to use commas for thousands separators. This would make the numbers consistent with other large units in the article. See Wikipedia:MoS#Large numbers.
The 'Maintenance' section seems to have too much tactical detail for a summary style section. Can this material be migrated to the linked main article page and the events summarized on the ISS article? Perhaps with some sort of grouping by type, if possible.
The paragraph that begins "An air leak from the USOS in 2004..." needs to be completely re-written so that it makes sense.

The article as a whole seems to have some issues staying on topic. I suspect that this may be the result of additions by space advocates, but they add bulk to the article, introduce a certain lack of focus, and are perhaps best covered elsewhere. I've noted these below.

I think you can toss out the following content because they read almost like nationalistic glorifications and have little to do with the ISS:
- 'China is planning to launch its own Space station in 2011, and has officially initiated its program for a modular station. However, China has indicated a willingness to cooperate further with other countries on manned exploration.'
- The entire paragraph that begins with the sentence: 'The Russian Orbital Segment is the eleventh Soviet-Russian space station.'
"The Russian approach allows assembly of space stations..." seems off topic and probably should be removed.
This is getting off topic: "Large, acute doses of radiation from Coronal Mass Ejection can cause radiation sickness and can be fatal. Without the protection of the Earth's Magnetosphere, interplanetary manned missions are especially vulnerable." I think it should be removed.

I hope these comments are useful. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks, these issues have been annoying me a great deal and it's an incredible relief to see I'm not the only one. At the moment I'm almost alone on the talkpage, with new editors who are extremely helpful, and the occasional troll, my mentor is away.

All of the entire first section of your points I'll implement as best I can ASAP. I'll chop the nationalistic glorifications, but for now keep the first bit, it is the smallest way I can provide context for the ISS, it is a space station, and needs some kind of context amongst other space stations especially contemporary and past, some people think it is the 2nd or 3rd, some people will be confused when other stations are up there. Context I read is important, in some relevant style articles. Future stations are no context because proposals come and proposals go, dozens at a time. OPSEK gets a mention at the moment because a lot of it's components are in orbit right now, attached to the ISS.

Is there a way I can implement an explanation of the end of the ISS mission without mentioning OPSEK ? or remove mentions of opsek altogether ?
How can I get rid of mentioning the Russia segment's position in the Russian space station program, it's like the 11th, but can I just leave this out completely ? is that ok for Neutrality ?

I think that is why the sections 'End of Mission' and 'De-Orbit' were left out of the article earlier, because this is a tough nut to crack.

"The Russian approach allows assembly of space stations..." should I dump the American approach part also ? Some other editor was saying before I ever got into wiki that the article 'reads like a NASA brochure' I think it should too, it'd sound nice and professional ! but where can I put this stuff so it won't annoy the Americans ? I need help to bury this crap so it goes unnoticed, I'd appreciate anyone's help on this. Penyulap_talk 00:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I like to do in cases like that is to move the material to a more appropriate article, then say so in the edit message. This seems to mollify most objections. The space station article looks like a good place to put information on different approaches to space station construction, along with other, general information that can apply to any space station. Besides, that article could use more content. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]