Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive3


 * 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 Karanacs 19:32, 21 July 2009.

International Space Station

 * Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to put this article forward for consideration for a third time, if there are no objections. :-) I feel that this article discusses a Vital topic in a very comprehensive and accurate way, and meets the Featured Article Criteria. Since the last FAC, a number of editors have been doing a lot of work on the article, notably with referencing, copyedit and addition of a few extra sections. The general organisation of the article has also been improved. As a result, I think that all the points raised regarding this article in the past have been dealt with, and that the ISS is ready for Featured Article status. Colds7ream (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * For such a long article, the lead could be somewhat longer.
 * In the Pressurized modules section, I don't see the need for the station view images; they are too small to be useful. The isolated view is good. Also, don't use the same image twice for Zarya.
 * I don't like the scattered use of sentence fragments among complete sentences in the descriptions.
 * The altitude control section says "ISS station keeping." Isn't that redundant? And there should be a hypen there.
 * "Station keeping" is the term for keeping something stationary in its orbit (Orbital station-keeping), so there is no redundancy. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I made many copyedits myself, and I see no further problems. Reywas92 Talk 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having just done a bit of work, I think I've fixed points 4 and 3a, however wrt point 2, I've opened a separate discussion on the talk page, which you can see here. As for the lead, I think general consensus is that it's long enough as is - we don't really want a great long essay as the intro? Colds7ream (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.heavens-above.com/
 * http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/
 * http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/
 * http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=05&month=06&year=2009
 * http://www.thespacereview.com/index.html
 * http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1093
 * Current ref 18 is just a bare url. Needs to be formatted with title, author, publisher and last access date at the least.
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, I noted ESA, JAXA, but there may be others.
 * Current ref 49 (Docking compartment..) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 50 (Robert Z. Pearlman..), the publisher is space.com, not collectSpace.
 * Decide if you want the authors in the references listed first name first or last name first, right now you have both which is inconsistent.
 * Current ref 64 (Ad Astra...) is lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 65 (Propulsion system..) is lacking a publisher
 * Current ref 73 (Space Station Observation..) is lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
 * Double check that all websites have last access dates. I noted that current ref 101 is lacking one (Chris Bergin..) as is 103 (Space Operations MIssion ..) but there may be others.
 * Current ref 108 (Space Adventures..) is lacking a publisher.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've run though the article and, I think, unified the author style and given everything a publisher & last accessed date (obviously, if I've missed any, please don't hesitate to let me know). However, insofar as abbreviations go, I'd hesitate to say that ESA and JAXA are 'lesser-known', and they are listed in their full form in the article anyway. Finally, with reference to source reliability, what I'd say is what makes them unreliable? For instance, Heavens-Above can have its reliability tested physically, a rare thing on the internet, simply by printing off pass data for the ISS then heading outside at the listed time and looking in the specified ditrection to see the orange star that is the ISS pass across the horizon - I've done this several times, and it's always correct. Colds7ream (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. As for the ESA and JAXA being well known, they won't be to anyone not familiar with the subject matter. --Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for a start, is hosted by the University of Maryland, and, as I've said, Heavens-Above.com can be tested physically. Can I also ask where there are any other newspapers needing italics, as I thought I'd got them? Colds7ream (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ON the newspapers, I'm in a hurry to get some other stuff done, so didn't have a chance to make sure they were all taken care of, that's all. I should be back later to double check it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Details for the websites:
 * AstronomyExpert - About Us
 * SpaceWeather - weather data is via the NOAA, and the website is written by Dr. Tony Phillips, a member of the Science@NASA team:
 * The Space Review - Submission Guidelines
 * SpaceRef selects its writers dependent upon prior experience in the field: Guest Writer Application.
 * RussianSpaceWeb - The author has been published in various aerospace magazines: About the Author.
 * ParabolicArc - About the Author
 * I have removed the absolute astronomy source and replaced it with a Boeing one. Colds7ream (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple of new things:
 * Is it space.com (Imaginova Corp) or Space.com? Pick one (I suggest the latter since you seem to use it more often. )
 * What makes http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/ a reliable source? (Used in current ref 36 (Chris Bergin..) which lacks a publisher)
 * Current ref 50 (Robert Pearlman..) lacks a last access date.
 * What makes http://www.astronautix.com/index.html a reliable source?
 * That's all I saw. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * NASASpaceflight.com is reliable as the entire site is populated by NASA engineers and contractors, and bases its articles directly on NASA source documents, which can be seen in their L2 section.
 * Encyclopedia Astronautica is a fairly well-known and well-regarded website by those with an interest in spaceflight.
 * I've dealt with the Space.com problem and refs 36 & 50. Colds7ream (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The lead could be longer, but overall this point is not enough to hold it back IMO. Very informative, and it leads with a Featured Picture. Some of the other photos may be FP quality, as they are interesting and educational. A great article, overall. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  22:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - A lot of work has gone into this, and I think it is more than ready for FA status. -- G W … 14:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Will the previous two supporters please address the concerns about reliable sources? Leading with a featured picture, when "the lead could be longer" or "a lot of work" going into an article don't provide good reasoning for support.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Oppose votes are much easier to explain than support votes." I read the article, reviewed the sources, checked the images. I found nothing, in my opinion, that would give me a reason to oppose this article. Therefore, I support it. I hope that is reason enough because I don't know what else to say about it. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WRT the previous comments, if you support on a narrow basis, please specify it, so the scope of the support is clear to everyone. Putting work into a nomination isn't a reason that it should be promoted. Tony   (talk)  17:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to work going to the article. As for specific rationale, I agree with ErgoSum's assessment above. -- G W … 11:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose unless the writing is significantly improved. 1a; here are random examples from the lead alone.
 * "As of 2009, the ISS is the largest artificial satellite in Earth orbit, larger than any previous space station." I had to read this twice to work out how the past/present and the artificial satellite / space station map onto each other. I'm still unsure.
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The second para is a mess of blue. Do readers really derive relevant understanding by hitting "United States" or "Japan", when the title of their space agencies are linked as well? And "China" ... the name boggles my mind. Why a link? It's not even to a specific part of the China article (or is there an article on Chinese space science?). Skilled linking, please.
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Space station" linked again in the lead. "Naked eye" is very borderline as to whether most English-speakers above the age of seven don't already know what it means. "Earth" linked on third, not first appearance; and isn't that article too general to link? "mi" (miles) linked?
 * Done. No, I don't think the Earth article is too general to link - the body the station orbits is the planet Earth, and if we were dealing, with, say, one of the Viking Orbiters, we'd link Mars. Miles are linked, yes. As opposed to nautical miles. Colds7ream (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense for nautical miles to be used in this context? See WP:OVERLINK on linking common terms, including units of measurement. Agree with Tony that "naked eye" is borderline linking material. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove "all" and "it"; isn't "becoming the first crew member from another space agency" redundant? And it raises the question of "programmes" vs. "agencies".
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Prior to"—personal preference only: "Before".
 * " The crew of Expedition 20 is currently aboard."—When is "currently"? Please see MoSNUM on chronological vagueness, is it. Tony   (talk)  17:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently as in 'at this moment' - that statement is updated regularly as expeditions change, and any implementation featuring the as of template doesn't read anywhere near as well. Of course, if you have a solution to that, feel free to fix it. As for any other problems, please specify what they are - the number of prose reviews we've had is ridiculous, and it's probably getting to the point where points raised in them are in direct opposition to one another. Colds7ream (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is lots of "currently". It's a problem. I've just copy-edited a small portion and found many little things to improve. Tony   (talk)  02:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem there is the ongoing nature of station operations - a lot changes fairly regularly, and we have to keep the article updated well, but a lot of statements are date-dependant. As for the other problems, fair enough, but please tell us what they are, so we can fix them! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when this was going to pop up... :-) Righto, I'll get on it. Colds7ream (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How's that looking? Colds7ream (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting on this. A few comments:
 * The first alt text doesn't tell a visually impaired reader what the ISS looks like. Could you please add a description there? Pretend the reader simply can't see the image, and you're trying to briefly tell them what it looks like. Later images don't need that level of detail for the ISS itself (you can assume the visually impaired reader has heard the 1st alt text) but as things stand a blind reader right now won't have a clue about its appearance.
 * The exploded view's alt text doesn't contain any info on what it looks like; some should be present. You needn't explain every little detail (the text is mostly unreadable, for example), just the overall appearance. Ideally you'll give the visually impaired reader the same level of insight into the ISS's structure as a sighted reader would gain by a second or two's glance; due to space constraints you won't be able to achieve that goal but that's the direction to aim for anyway.
 * The alt text for the two flames describes mechanism. It should describe only appearance. Something like "Side by side images of a candle flame (left) and a glowing translucent blue hemisphere of flame (right)".
 * Image:ISS on 20 August 2001.jpg has alt text that just repeats part of the caption and gives info that isn't obvious from appearance. It should describe just appearance and give useful info.
 * File:ISS 26.07.07.jpg has alt text with a phrase "The ISS, seen as" that should be removed. It's not clear from the image itself that this is the ISS. "Seen as" is redundant: alt text is about what is seen.
 * Most of the images (including the .ogg and the table of modules) lack alt text so I assume this is a work in progress. Thanks again for starting on this.
 * Eubulides (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've had a go at sorting some of these issues - is that better? Colds7ream (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. The two images you wrote up are fine. More, please! Eubulides (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll continue to do so in a week's time - I'm off to RAF Lossiemouth for a week, and will be without a web connection for a while. Please don't fail the FAC in the meantime! Colds7ream (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on several niggling and one major image issue: Awaiting feedback (willing to wait for Colds7ream's return). Jappalang (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:ISS March 2009.jpg: point the source to the page the image is hosted on, not directly to the image itself.
 * File:ISS configuration 2009-03 en.svg: as above
 * File:Harmony Relocation.jpg: as above
 * File:Iss Node 3.JPG: as above
 * File:Space Fire.jpg: as above
 * File:ISS altitude.gif: as above; this image should also be transcluded to a PNG per WP:IUP
 * File:Cycle.gif: this image should be transcluded to a JPG per WP:IUP; I also advise to remove the logo to eliminate the need for a insignia clause to be added (restricting its legal use for reusers).
 * File:ISS Zvezda module-small.jpg: Wikipedia is not a valid source.
 * File:ISS Hardware Allocation.png: what is the source for those figures?
 * File:ISS Logo.svg: are any of these flags copyrighted?
 * File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg: I cannot fathom how this is PD "because it was created by NASA." It was taken by the Mir crew, not NASA...  are Russian cosmonauts under NASA employment?
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.