Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:18, 20 December 2008.

International Space Station

 * Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that, following a lot of work by some very diligent editors, a peer review and successful GAN, this article meets the Featured Article Requirements. In addition, it discusses a highly important and relevant machine, the International Space Station, considered by the Version 1.0 team to be a vital topic, and so certainly counts as a notable subject. Colds7ream (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments for now:
 * Why is "Not yet launched" repeatedly emphasised in a table called "Scheduled to be launched"?
 * Why are the isolated and station view of the Zarya the same image?
 * Could you elaborate on the "byproducts of human metabolism" that are removed by the activated charcoal filter? The article tells us how the CO2 is removed but how is the urine and faeces processed, is this where the activated charcoal is used?
 * The article still needs some copy-editing. I removed two occurrences of "in order to", but glitches remain here and there, and please check for correct Em and En dash usage. I enjoyed reading the article—thanks. Graham Colm  Talk 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the 'Not yet launched' labels - they're a leftover from when that table was part of the table above it. I've removed them.
 * The views of Zarya are the same because when she was launched, Zarya was the ISS - she was the first module launched, and, as a result, represented the entire station.
 * I'll get to work on the other two points.
 * Colds7ream (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just realized that there is quite a bit of "British" english in the article, while most of it is American oriented, especially the dates. analyse, programme, kilometres, tonnes, pressurised. I'm not quite into the finer details of US vs. UK spelling. I'm not sure what to do in these cases. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I spotted this (as with "centre"); the article must be consistent. Given that it is about the International Space Station, I guess the principal editors can choose? Graham Colm Talk 20:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style says that you should decide upon a dialect and stick with it; I think the general unspoken agreement was that given the article also discusses European and Russian spaceflight, which are predominantly written in British English (see Salyut 6, for instance), that was the best way to go. Colds7ream (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Shall I work on converting all the dates to European format then ? --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments This interesting article on an important subject could benefit from a rigorous copyedit to remove extraneous words and prose. Examples:


 * "currently being built"; "currently under construction"; "currently participating" -- What does "currently" add?


 * "A typical day would begin" -- Why not "A typical day begins"?


 * "at which point" -- use “when”


 * Repetition of “additionally” (a word which should be used very sparingly, if at all) twice in the span of three sentences


 * Repetition of pressurized volume when complete

Other comments:


 * In the text in list of modules, you sometimes use complete sentences, sometimes not. You may wish to make it consistent.


 * The first sentence in "Sightings" seems labored, and can be made terser and more coherent.


 * There seem to be some artifacts of old edits (a stray = shows up); please carefully proofread it again.
 * Handled, an edit from tonight caused a header to break --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Kablammo (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've dealt with all the comments in this block, and TheDJ seems to have done a good job on a copyedit, too. How's that looking? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is also some overlinking, including linking of names of countries and of Europe itself. Kablammo (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"...whereas the other sections of the station have been agreed to be assigned as follows:
 * Comment. In the politics and finances section, I don't understand this part:

1. Columbus: 51% for ESA, 49% for NASA and CSA (CSA has agreed with NASA to use 2.3% of all non-Russian ISS structure)

2. Kibo: 51% for JAXA, 49% for NASA and CSA (2.3%)

3. Destiny: 100% for NASA and CSA (2.3%) as well as 100% of the truss payload accommodation

4. Crew time and power from the solar panel structure, as well as rights to purchase supporting services (upload/download and communication services) 76.6% for NASA, 12.8% for JAXA, 8.3% for ESA and 2.3% for CSA"

Is it talking about the division of the costs for these things, ownership, or what? If not cost, then what exactly do these percentages mean? How does one use 2.3% of a structure? If it's about the time spent using these sections, how is it regulated and how closely are percentage allotments adhered to (and what are the social and research implications of this arrangement)?--ragesoss (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The time spent using the modules is determined by point 4, whilst points 1, 2 and 3 govern how much actual structure is assigned to each partner, i.e. how many research devices each partner can put in each segment. Colds7ream (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This needs to be explained more clearly in the article. The significance of points 1-3 is not clear in the present form, and point 4 perhaps out to be part of a paragraph instead of a numbered item.--ragesoss (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Please spell out abbreviations in the references, such as NASA, ESA, GAO, etc. Just the first time they are mentioned is sufficient.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.heavens-above.com/
 * http://www.spacedaily.com/
 * http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/manifest.txt
 * http://www.spaceref.com/
 * http://www.space-travel.com/
 * All your website references and pdfs need last access dates. (Noted refs 17 & 18 (STS-123 & STS-124 press kit ...) but there are probably others.)
 * Current ref 26 (Barry, Patrick...) is missing a publisher.
 * Same for current ref 28 (NASAexplores...) where the publisher is in the title, it needs to be outside the link title.
 * Current ref 38 (Jones, Chris...) needs a page number
 * Current ref 41 needs a publisher (Khrunichev State...)
 * Current ref 42 (BUckley, Jay...) needs a page number
 * Titles of publications need to be in italics, such as Orlando Sentinel, etc. When using cite news you use the work field to do this.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll work on this. The books might be a problem for me, but all the other stuff I will deal with today/tomorrow. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Colds7ream (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, there's been some work going on - the metabolic byproducts have been specified, we've copyedited and the soirces are being dealt with - although I'm not sure how to page number the books, as they are used on multiple occasions. How's the looking? Oh - and, given that I forgot it before:

Status with regard to all comments? There seems to be some inactivity here. Graham Colm Talk 23:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, most if not all have been dealt with, with TheDJ dealing with citations. Colds7ream (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.