Talk:Expedition 1/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer:  G W … 09:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Thanks for the review, GW. I'm looking forward to addressing the rest of your concerns soon. Mlm42 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * I've done some cleanup, but a copyedit would be useful. In particular, "the control of the station's orientation was switched from propellants to electrically powered gyroscopes" doesn't make sense since the propellant itself does not control the orientation. There are some mentions of "tons" without specifying which type of ton. The part of the lead detailing the crew's past experience doesn't entirely make sense.
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, however it contains some information which is not later mentioned in the article, such as more detailed information about the crew. Also, the use of US time zones for on-orbit events is inappropriate; UTC should be used instead. There are also a couple of places where Space Shuttle names have not been italicised. There is a small amount of overlinking, particularly to Space Shuttle.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * There are no references in the "ground communications" section.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Sources seem fairly reliable
 * C. No original research:
 * No issues here
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The article does not contain enough information on the daily activities of the crew, and the scientific research they conducted. More information on the Progress spacecraft would also be useful.
 * B. Focused:
 * No problems here
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is pretty much neutral, however in a few places it tends slightly towards sensationalism, such as describing the manual docking of a Progress spacecraft (which is fairly routine) as "dangerous".
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No problems here.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Captions are fine, but the images lack alt text
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Is this still active? It's been dormant for over a week, so I'm supposed to close it as failed, but I'll leave it open for a few more days if work is still being done. -- G W … 21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; sorry, my bad. Mlm42 (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed all the concerns listed above.. Mlm42 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking through quickly, there are still a few MOS issues but most of the rest have been fixed. I'll do another detailed check later, and let you know what still needs work. In the meantime, could you possibly have a look at rewording the sentence on Yuri Semenov's views about the naming of the station. Whilst I agree that it fits with the sourced information, I believe the SpaceRef article has misinterpreted his position, since I am sure that he would have been aware of Salyut and Skylab when he made his comments. Also, some more descriptive alt texts would be useful if possible. -- G W … 20:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added another reference (from a different interview) to Semenov's opinion. I don't think it's been misrepresented; of course he was aware of previous stations, but he was probably particularly proud of Mir. And regarding alt text, my understanding is that if the image is a photograph with a detailed caption (as in this article), then the alt text "photograph" is sufficient. This is stated on the page WP:ALT, which you mentioned. Mlm42 (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll accept that. I'm going to need to run through the article again to check 1A, 1B, 3A and 4. I think that 3A and 4 are met but I want to be sure, the other two may need a small amount of work. Hopefully I'll be able to let you know what is required tomorrow. -- G W … 21:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The review's been on review for over a month and seems to be only slowly moving along. Are we near a final decision? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue here is that it has gone on so long that I no longer have anywhere near the level of free time that I had when I began the review. -- G W … 09:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's anything I can do to help, I'd be happy to. Mlm42 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want GW, I can wrap up the review if it's easier on you. This way you don't feel rushed in using the bits of free time you have to wrap this up. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 14:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there hasn't been editing on his end in the past week, I'll wrap up this review tonight. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the refs in the regular section that are by NASA be in the NASA refs? (#6, 20, 24, 29, 40) Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite right.. I fixed this. Mlm42 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are the remaining issues I found:
 * "Flight engineer Sergei Krikalev had spent over a year in orbit, mostly on Mir, and would become the first person to visit the ISS twice." I'd like to see a cite for this, though i won't necessarily force it.
 * Done. Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Due to several delays, including the fallout from the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the station is expected to be completed in late 2011." Is this still true? I presume so, just poking in case it was already in the article pre-GA overhaul.
 * Actually, partially, the final element, Nauka, a Russian lab has slipped to mid-2012, but I don't think the Russians have given a clear statement to that effect yet. -MBK004 07:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to NASA's launch schedule, it's still 2011.. so I added the reference to that effect. Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any rhyme or reason to the alternating between Expedition 1 and Expedition One? I'm alright with it, though others might have a problem with it if FAC is a target. Or maybe they would want the alternating, just something to keep in mind rather than a concrete problem.
 * Good point.. made them all Expedition 1. Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The three-member Expedition One crew successfully launched 31 October 2000" launched on
 * Done. Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "as well as four short-term crew member of STS-102" crew members
 * Done. Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "which ended up being nearly 9 hours long" write out #s under ten.
 * Done. Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "(such as rest, and eating)" comma is unnecessary
 * Done. Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Due to the speed of the space station, the window of radio contact only lasts for 5–10 minutes, which is usually enough for 10 to 20 questions." should probably say "was usually enough" unless this has remained true on the ISS.
 * I made it past tense.. even though it remains true today. Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "only 4 resulted in successful crystallizations," write out #
 * Done. Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like GW hit most of the main points. I'll put the article on hold for a few days and pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reading! :) Mlm42 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting that out, I was rather caught up with work last week. -- G W … 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)