Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International Space Station[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm nominating this article for Peer Review as a final step before another FAC - following the last peer review, which led to a huge number of improvements in the article, we've passed GAR and gone through one FAC, fixing the issues brought up during it. As a result, comments would be appreciated with regards to the final polishing of the article, and, therefore, a full A-class review would be fantastic. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this stone cold. I haven't reviewed anything. I hope that these are of use, and don't re-open old issues. If consensus was reached barely on any of these items, please don't consider this a "vote". I'll join that discussion myself. Let me know, please.

  • General order - Bearing in mind that I'm an engineer myself, I suggest that the order could be re-arranged to better grab attention of general readers:
  1. Origins
  2. Overview - This would be a new section.
  3. Scientific research
  4. Political and financial aspects
  5. Space station
  6. Life on board
  7. Station operations
  8. Visiting spacecraft
  • Overview section: I don't see a crisp two paragraph overview of the station's general purpose (research possible nowhere else) and layout. We dive right to the high tech detail. Unfortunately NASA's site isn't much help. It dives right in too. But it's a fair question: "So, what exactly is this thing we're spending gajillions of dollars on?" The average American doesn't believe in evolution (God help us.), so we need to be really clear. Think sixth-grade science class as the audience for this.
  • Visiting spacecraft - Currently docked sub-section: This is a dynamic list. Consider adding a direct link to NASA so that the reader can check this directly.

I'd love to see this an a FA. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! With regards to the dynamic list, was this the sort of thing what you had in mind? [1]. I agree with you on the overview section, although I'd be at a loss as to how to go about writing it - could be interesting... :-) As far as the structure goes, if, from an engineering standpoint, that makes sense to you, go ahead and change it! :-) I'll also get on to adding some of those APOD images to the sightings section - some of them are gorgeous! Colds7ream (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Liking the reorg - hopefully that'll make things a bit clearer to folks. However, i've made a couple of changes - firstly, I've switched the Origins and Overview sections around so the overview comes first - I figure it'd be best for folks to have an idea of what they're reading about before the more detailed sections begin. Also, I've moved the configuration image back into the infobox - it's a standard layout used in all space station articles, and, if people want to read the labelling, all that's needed is a quick click. You'll also note that I've added that live link you suggested to the docked spacecraft section. However, we're going to have some difficulty an APOD image to sightings section, as they're all copyrighted and WP:NONFREE says Fair Use images are non-permissable if they're of an existing building - I'm not entirely sure how to apply that rule here. Colds7ream (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the most strict sense (unfortunately for the encyclopedia). I'll see if i can find a NASA sighting shot, but it will be rather difficult I think. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see an image has been found! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Pax85[edit]

I think this is a wonderful article. It has a wide breadth and scope, and provides plenty of information about the station. Looking over the other peer reviews, input was recieved and taken into serious consideration. Many changes have been made to the article, and I think that it is up to muster to get to get through a FAN. Let's look at FA criteria (my comments in bold):

  1.  Done - Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
  2.  Done - Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  3.  Done - Factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
  4.  Done - Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
  5.  Done - Stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  6.  Done - Style: It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
  7.  In progress - Lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; - This is my only area of concern. While I believe the lead is good, I think it can be get better. It starts off with a lot of specs and tech, and may scare off some readers. Perhaps something to move some of the more technical details to a bit later, or constructing a lead out of the origins section?
  8.  Done - Appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
  9.  Done - Consistent citations: where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
  10.  Done - Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. (Although I will say that the modules section is a bit cluttered, but they are good photographs, and I like the layout otherwise.)
  11.  Done - Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I think that the lead issue is small, and can be easily resolved if there is consensus on what to do with it. That was just my personal opinion, and I don't believe it will stand in the way of a FAN. A wonderful article, and I feel privileged to be involved. I would also like to thank for everyone's help on the couple of questions that I had on conventions! Pax85 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-class Vote[edit]

  1. Support Colds7ream (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Pax85 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support -MBK004 07:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --GW… 00:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support AikiHawkeye (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing review[edit]

OK folks - I believe that this review has served its purpose in ironing out the last few niggles with the article. Many thanks to the reviewers and copyeditors, all the hard work is appreciated. In summary, I believe we have a consensus to promote the article to A-class, and I'll put the article up again for Featured Article Candidacy! Thanks again for all the help, looking forward to seeing people at the FAC! Colds7ream (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Sandy's comment, I have retracted the A-classification. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/International_Space_Station/archive3&oldid=1138562213"