Progress M1-5 edit
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just been listed as a good article, and another editor has suggested that it might be close to the requirements for featured article status. Therefore, I would like this review to look for issues with the article meeting this criteria ahead of it being nominiated for FA status. Thanks --GW… 08:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Doncram The article looks good to me. The early link to deorbit goes to Orbit (disambiguation) which includes "deorbit" in bold, but which does not directly define what "deorbit" means. Orbit is primarily a noun. "Deorbit" is presumably a verb, and the verb should be defined where the article links to. Hope this helps in a small way. :) doncram (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- You could always use Wiktionary - see wikt:deorbit, which can be piped as deorbit. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to take so long on this. I think it looks pretty good, but still needs some work before FAC. With WP:WIAFA in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- Per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:ITALIC direct quotations should not be italicized
- Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
- I can see this article being named something like "Deorbiting of Mir" - since the title is about the spaceship, could a bit more about it be added? When and where was it made? How much did it cost? What did the launch cost? I realize some of this might not be known, but I also imagine much of this is known for the class of spaceships.
- The article uses the name "Rosaviakosmos" for the Russian Federal Space Agency, but the article on the space agency does not contain this name (the logo uses the Cyrillic "Roscosmos").
- Could a map of the Pacific with a red dot where Mir crashed be added?
- Refs should be in numerical order, so fix thingsl ike Rosaviakosmos decided against funding the continued operation of Mir.[9][8]
- This might need a ref for FAC Launch was set for 06:56:26 GMT on 18 January.
- Are all the refs considered Relaible sources? What about current ref 3 (Jonathan's Space Page) for example?
- The most difficult criteria for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. I think this needs a copyedit before FAC. A few examples (not an exhaustive list) follow:
- From the lead: Launched in January 2001 after a short delay due to a problem with Mir, on 27 January, Progress M1-5 became the last spacecraft to dock with the station. I would give the exact date of the launch in this sentence. As it currently reads, "on January 27" is awkward and unclear (without the specific date of launch, it sounds like it could refer to the launch date too)
- Or this could be clearer This had been followed by six more modules, launched between 1987 and 1996, all using Proton-K rockets, except one which was launched aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis.[3] perhaps as something like This had been followed by six more modules, launched between 1987 and 1996, five using Proton-K rockets, and one launched aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis in YEAR.[3]
- I think it usually is clearer to go from the general to the specific, so I would start with Free-flights of Progress spacecraft typically lasted two days from launch to docking with Mir.[30] then follow it with Progress M1-5 took three days to reach Mir in order to conserve fuel for the deorbit burn. If it had launched on 18 January ...
- I realize this article uses Britsh English, but the official name of the "Shuttle-Mir Programme" is spelled Shuttle-Mir Program
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)