Talk:Writing in space: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Nlky - "→Adam's (Nlky) Peer Review: new section" |
|||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
== Adam's (Nlky) Peer Review == |
== Adam's (Nlky) Peer Review == |
||
I also wanted to suggest additional information about how these technologies are developed on Earth. |
|||
The lead section does not address all of the issues discussed in the article. "the problems with writing in space conditions" are mentioned but not explained (zero-gravity is mentioned in the next sentence, but I would suggest explaining 'why' this presents a problem, and if there are any other problems). A link to a photo or article about the Fisher Space Pen is might be nice. Also, I would not use the word "cheaper" and suggest the more neutral term 'less expensive'. |
|||
Structurally, I would recommend starting with the section entitled: "Writing instruments specifically intended for space writing". "Mission Requirements" as a section header does not suggest a clear meaning for the content, and I might suggest re-naming that section. |
|||
Overall certain parts seem to read more like a narrative than a neutral information source. For example, in looking at the text: "While the Soyuz spacecraft had a 14.7 psi (101 kPa) design pressure, and could use its orbital module as an airlock, the orbital module would be deleted for planned lunar missions. In any case, a pen which was insensitive to pressure and temperature would eliminate the issue (including accidental depressurizations), provide a margin, and allow the ability to record during extravehicular activities. " I'm not sure "deleted" is the correct word in the first sentence. Some of the wording throughout the article such as "in any case" could be changed to something like 'For these reasons'. I would recommend checking the entire article for such revisions. |
|||
The article seems on topic, and covers aspects I did not know about writing in space. I imagine that eventually electronic solutions replaced physical writing instruments. I think a section on that would be a valuable addition. |
|||
Nlky (Adam) 23:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nlky|Nlky]] ([[User talk:Nlky#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nlky|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Nlky (Adam) 23:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nlky|Nlky]] ([[User talk:Nlky#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nlky|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 23:06, 24 February 2019
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Writing in space article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Spaceflight: Space stations Start‑class Low‑importance ![]() | |||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was move to writing in space.. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nlky (article contribs).
do they work or not?
quote:
"However, it is not well known that space pens are actually fake and do not work. They were first exposed to the public as fake news. "
--OK so they don't work.
Its thixotropic ink and vent-free cartridge release no significant vapor at common temperatures and low pressures. The ink is forced out by compressed nitrogen at a pressure of nearly 35 psi (240 kPa), and it functions at altitudes up to 12,500 feet (3800 m) and at temperatures from −30 to 250 °F (−35 to 120 °C). However, it is slightly more expensive than the aforementioned alternatives. It has been used by both NASA and Soviet/Russian astronauts on Apollo, Shuttle, Mir,[5] and ISS missions."
--Wait, what, now they do work?
--Is it just me or is this unclear?
--wle. Wlexxx (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Wlexxx (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)wle.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlexxx (talk • contribs) 12:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Writing in space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004224752/http://www.thewritersedge.com/faq.cfm to http://www.thewritersedge.com/faq.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Adam's (Nlky) Peer Review
The lead section does not address all of the issues discussed in the article. "the problems with writing in space conditions" are mentioned but not explained (zero-gravity is mentioned in the next sentence, but I would suggest explaining 'why' this presents a problem, and if there are any other problems). A link to a photo or article about the Fisher Space Pen is might be nice. Also, I would not use the word "cheaper" and suggest the more neutral term 'less expensive'.
Structurally, I would recommend starting with the section entitled: "Writing instruments specifically intended for space writing". "Mission Requirements" as a section header does not suggest a clear meaning for the content, and I might suggest re-naming that section.
Overall certain parts seem to read more like a narrative than a neutral information source. For example, in looking at the text: "While the Soyuz spacecraft had a 14.7 psi (101 kPa) design pressure, and could use its orbital module as an airlock, the orbital module would be deleted for planned lunar missions. In any case, a pen which was insensitive to pressure and temperature would eliminate the issue (including accidental depressurizations), provide a margin, and allow the ability to record during extravehicular activities. " I'm not sure "deleted" is the correct word in the first sentence. Some of the wording throughout the article such as "in any case" could be changed to something like 'For these reasons'. I would recommend checking the entire article for such revisions.
The article seems on topic, and covers aspects I did not know about writing in space. I imagine that eventually electronic solutions replaced physical writing instruments. I think a section on that would be a valuable addition.
Nlky (Adam) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlky (talk • contribs)
Adam's (Nlky) Peer Review
I also wanted to suggest additional information about how these technologies are developed on Earth.
Nlky (Adam) 23:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlky (talk • contribs)