Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shuttle-Mir Program

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Shuttle-Mir Program

Self-nomination An article which has undergone extensive expansion recently, passing through the Good Article criteria and Peer Review with several comments being made and acted upon. Extensive coverage of the topic, good prose (even if I say so myself :-D) a nice number of images and seems to comply with the manual of style. If any more changes need to be made, i'm more than happy to make them. Colds7ream 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- The article does a good job describing how the Shuttle-Mir Program marks a major turning point in space exploration history. (Before Shuttle-Mir there was mostly competiton between countries; since Shuttle-Mir there has been the cooperation that led to the International Space Station.) The article is well-written, reasonably comprehensive, and written without apparent POV bias. Sdsds 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I agree with Sdsds's comments about the article, adding that all my comments were taken care of by Colds7ream in the peer review. Happy editing, [sd] 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written, comprehensive, compelling, even "brilliant" + a great topic, Colds7ream, nice work. Good luck with the Nomination, Max 05:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article needs extensive cleanup and copyediting by a new set of eyes. I just did a bit of work, but there were WP:MSH problems, there are lots of WP:DASH problems, the footnote formatting needs work (either wikilink the dates so they will show in reader preferences, or use one consistent format); some partial dates that shouldn't be linked are and others that should be linked aren't (see WP:MOSNUM), and there are prose issues. For example, "To date, the International Space Station consists of six pressurised modules, ... " To date ? As of ? ~~Please correct the WP:MOS issues~~ and get a fresh, uninvolved set of eyes to run through the article for inconsistencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, I forgot. Organizing History by year doesn't strike me as "compelling" or "brilliant", since history rarely conforms to the arbitrary cutoffs of January 1 and December 31. Can the article be organized around significant eras in the History? And, the lead needs work per WP:LEAD, and the gallery extends off of my screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - i've had a run through the article properly formatting the reference dates, have renamed & reorganised the section headings (although the reorganisation was minimal, as the program really was pretty much divided up by year - 1994 was a warm-up, 1995 the first introduction missions, 1996 the start of continuous occupation, 1997 the accidents, and 1998 the wind-down) and reworded the ISS sentence pointed out. Thanks very much for doing the hashes for me, and i'd appreciate some ideas as to how I can improve the lead section. However, without wishing to sound rude or ungrateful, the Peer Review didn't point out any 'inconsistencies' and there's not really very much I can do to sort the gallery until the code behind it is redone - I understand work is underway to make it wrap. Plus, with respect, exactly how small is your monitor? Thanks, Colds7ream 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still dash problems in your section headings (date ranges are separated by ndash, not hyphens); there's a "the" in a section heading (see WP:MSH); the lead needs to be a stand-alone summary hitting all key points of the article (read WP:LEAD); I can't help it if peer review isn't thorough (they do a good job, though); the gallery shows fine on my laptop, but wraps on my large and ultra-large screens, so I don't think that explains it. Your footnotes are still incomplete; all websources need a last access date, author and date when avaiable (for example, your very first footnote should have *all* of those, since the website does provide them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens replaced by endashes, 'the' removed from heading, gallery IS beyond my control with regards to wrapping; see Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Photo_gallery, footnotes named & dates where information is available. I have read through to check for inconsistencies and can't seem to find any at the moment, but if you can find any i'd love to hear from you, and I will do some work on the introduction later on tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again, Colds7ream 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting better. Structural things have been addressed; attention to a prose copyedit ~~and the lead~~ remains. Here's another example of a sentence which indicates the need for tightening up the prose:

The ISS is already the largest spacecraft assembled in history, and upon its completion — marking the end of Phase Two and the start of Phase Three — will consist of five laboratories, be able to support six crew members in over 1000 cubic metres of pressurised volume, and will have a mass of 400,000 kilograms — almost twice the size of the combined Shuttle-Mir spacecraft.

The sentence seems to go on and on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it forward for copyedit at the League of Copyeditors. Colds7ream 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the lead section to four paragraphs, and would appreciate feedback on that. Thanks in advance, Colds7ream 17:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following no response from the LOC, I have perfomed a copyedit on the article myself. I've split a number of sentences, corrected some factual and formatting errors and added an extra citation or two. Comments? Colds7ream 13:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my oppose as work has been done; I'm sorry I don't have time to recheck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is extremely well written, verifiable, neutral and covers everything I can think of on the topic. I've copyedited some minor things. Great job Colds7ream! Aalox 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.