Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive4


 * 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 by Karanacs 19:24, 12 January 2010.

International Space Station

 * Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to, for the fourth occasion, put International Space Station forward for consideration as a Featured Article, as it represents a Vital topic in what I feel is a comprehensive and accurate way, with a plethora of references and a format which meets all requirements in the Manual of Style. Since the last FAC was prematurely closed six or so months ago, a lot more work has been completed on this article, including a sixth Peer Review which identified and fixed a number of issues, a copyedit and a general cleanup of citation formatting. A few more sections have been added and a couple of daughter articles have sprouted to assist in ensuring the article covers every pertinent topic, and the article has been kept updated to match operations and continuing assembly of the station on orbit. I hope that, on this fourth occasion, the FAC process will find this article suitable, and look forward to everyone's comments. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Recent discussions
 * PRs: 3, 4, 5, 6
 * GANs: 4
 * FACs: 1, 2, 3


 * Comments -
 * The last FAC left these sources out for other reviewers to decide for themselves (note I did check to make sure they were still being used in the article):
 * http://www.heavens-above.com/
 * http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/
 * http://www.thespacereview.com/index.html
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn092404.html (also lacks a publisher) Same site in current ref 112 and lacks a publisher there too.
 * Added publisher, reliability is via the University of Maryland. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But it specifically says at the bottom of the page "Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University, but they should be." which seems to imply this is not backed by the university. So is it really published by the University of Maryland? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.scienceinschool.org/2008/issue10/iss
 * Please see . Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.astronautix.com/index.html
 * Replaced. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 41. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.parabolicarc.com/2008/12/13/ad-astra-fly-vasimr-engine-iss/
 * Replaced. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With?
 * Ref 82. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/
 * http://old.spaceonline.tv/isscom/isscom038.txt
 * Simply because these are the only references I can find - they match up with the NASA diagram provided in the ISS reference guide, and I felt that a paragraph based on these would be better than 'the Russian bits have some cool radio stuff too...'. This is the trouble with the ROS - Roskosmos is considerably more secretive than NASA. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.glinx.com/~sherm/spacestation_observation.htm
 * This has the same backup as Heavens-Above - see when an ISS pass is going to be visible to you on Heavens-Above, then step outside at the appropriate time. Not only will the ISS be in the exact place Heavens-Above says it will, it'll look exactly as this page describes it. Physical checks - a wonderful thing on the Internet. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://spaceweather.com/
 * See the author's bio at . Colds7ream (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.universetoday.com/
 * See . Colds7ream (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would prefer to see something from a third-party reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed - this info is contained within source 120 anyway. Colds7ream (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.mosnews.com/world/2009/05/21/1844/
 * Removed. Just trying to mix up the refs, but fair enough. Colds7ream (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.spaceflightnow.com/
 * Replaced with Ref 140. Colds7ream (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please spell out abbreviations in the references, I noted "OUP" in ref 32 (I'm assuming Oxford University Press? But most folks aren't going to be a "source geek" like myself...) Also CSA in current ref 69 (International Space Station).
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 44 (Chris Jones) is a book source, and you've handily put in a amazon.com link to the sales page, but you don't give a page number for the information. It's 288 pages, needs a page number.
 * No idea, removed. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 121 (New NASA boss..) deadlinks. (newspaper isn't italicised either)
 * Current ref 124 (Rich Philips) has the publisher run into the link title, it needs to be separate.
 * Current ref 132 (Tariqu Malick) seems to be lacking a link, or is it the same as current ref 131 above it? If so, shouldn't it be combined?
 * Current refs 144 and 145 (Justin Ray) lack last access dates.
 * All above done. Colds7ream (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - The content is comprehensive and presented in a balanced fashion, and the prose engages the reader. The photos are fantastic! (sdsds - talk) 08:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - The article is well written and includes lots of comprehensive information. I second Sdsds on the photos.  I feel the article meets the FA requirements. DR04 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good from the technical view.
 * No dab links or dead external links—a tough feat here, but you did it.
 * All images have alt text where needed. Too much text for me to want to check further (sorry).  The "Space stations and habitats" navbox image should probably have none, but that's minor.
 * I think I've dealt with this. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref dates are at least mostly Day Month Year; verify that no more Month Day, Year or ISO style dates have crept in (I changed one).


 * Support – My concerns with the article were raised during the last peer review and some follow-on comments. Those were addressed satisfactorily and so I'm happy to lend my support for an FA status on this article.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note " ... the photos are fantastic ..." and "includes lots of comprehensive information" will not get this article promoted in the absence of discussion of the issues about reliability of sources raised. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources requiring discussion:
 * http://www.heavens-above.com/
 * Can be validated physically by downloading pass data for a satellite, then seeing if the pass data matches the satellite's actual orbit via observing it, which it always does. Colds7ream (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can also verify by using NASA's http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/index.html but no one uses it, because it's inaccessible JAVA crap. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/
 * About Colds7ream (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.thespacereview.com/index.html
 * About Colds7ream (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn092404.html
 * Author biography Colds7ream (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/
 * Matches the communication systems diagram in NASA's ISS reference guide: File:ISS Communication Systems.png. Colds7ream (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://old.spaceonline.tv/isscom/isscom038.txt
 * Also matches the ISS reference guide diagram. Colds7ream (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.glinx.com/~sherm/spacestation_observation.htm
 * Can be validated physically by observing an ISS pass; the description given here matches what is seen during an ISS pass. Colds7ream (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://spaceweather.com/
 * Author biography Colds7ream (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Colds7ream (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Article has improved greatly. Reads well and above explanation of sources looks good to me. --mav 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - article is an interesting read and comprehensive. The sources identified above as being potentially problematic seem to me to satisfy our reliability/verifiability requirements. That said, should others feel otherwise, I think the statements they support could generally be removed entirely without ill effect to the article as a whole. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments re certain sources (a partial response to Sandy's plea):
 * Heavens above - I think this is possibly OK. If I have interpreted third-party sites correctly, the site is recommended by staff at Sydney Observatory (see http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/blog/?p=134).
 * Great, thanks. Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/ - Looks unreliable to me, in the sense that the reliability of content is unclear, and i couldn't find recommendations in favour of it (i did, however, after chasing some links down rabbit holes, find a less than happy customer of a claimed founder of the site). I would find an alternative source or ditch the relevant content.
 * OK, I've removed this, having discovered this is also described in the ISS reference guide. Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob Park - Assuming his CV is not fake, then this material is reliable to establish the opinions of Bob Park: it seems fine to cite it when reporting him as one of the ISS's critics and why he was a critic. I'm not convinced it's such a great idea to be relying on this material to establish facts. Thus the second instance of footnote 25 i think is not appropriate as a reliable source. I think the first instance is problematic in terms of undue weight. Park's very brief comments on his page are used as a cite for this: "This large cost has meant that the ISS programme has been the target of various criticisms over its financing, research capabilities and technical design". The ISS is one of the largest scientific and engineering endeavours of modern civilisation. If I'm going to see a citation for criticism, it should be much more heavyweight than an individual physicist. This is egregious undue weight. For criticisms to be mentioned in the lead, i'd be expecting open letters from scientific societies, or an editorial in Nature, or a critical congressional report. Anything less than that isn't serious in this content, i would suggest.
 * Would something like this be more appropriate: ? We can't just not have a section on criticism, as this would present us with a heap of bias... Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I moved the Bob Park reference so that it only cites for statements made directly by him, and added in the Popular Mechanics reference to replace it in the other locations. Colds7ream (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Pop Mechanics reference is a significant improvement, and certainly avoids reliability questions. I'd want to think more about whether the criticisms are being given undue weight, but one quick point that would deal with this emerges from the PM article itself: it says at one point "The other group, an independent review committee appointed by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS), issued an even more stinging rebuke". If you can find such a source and cite it directly, as well as the Popular Mechanics piece, i would say that ties up this issue pretty well. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the one you're referring to? - Colds7ream (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added as ref 26. Colds7ream (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's it. Good. Verification of this section is now significantly improved. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing this theme, I tried to click through to cite 111 ("A waste of space"), and the link didn't work for me. i then went to 115 ("The trouble with space stations") - and realised the source was another one where reliability has been questioned during the review process. My quick glance suggests this does not rate as a reliable source. In the case of the article's report on "a panel session last week at the Military and Aerospace Programmable Logic Device (MAPLD) International Conference", it would be better to go to refereed publications by some of the esteemed contributors like Roger Launius. If there are no such publications covering criticisms of the ISS, that should tell us something :-)
 * Will work on this as soon as. Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced "A Waste of Space" with the Popular Mechanics reference - will this do as a published editorial? Will keep looking nevertheless. Colds7ream (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also removed ref 115 and the statement it was supporting. Colds7ream (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good. Do keep looking (and see my other reply above) but this is looking better. I may try and come back for another look in next two days. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get to the other source issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming back to sources: one of the web sites queried by both Ealdgyth and SandyG was http://www.glinx.com/~sherm/spacestation_observation.htm. Colds7ream's response is essentially "anyone can verify its reliablity by checking the site's predictions against their own observations of the sky". I note neither Ealdgyth nor Sandy have responded to this argument by striking their concern, so I presume they don't accept this argument as adequate. Colds7ream's argument did put me in mind of one of the examples of acceptable common knowledge: "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property". I actually wondered whether this could apply here, but if not, is it not at least enough as a reliability test for the citation in question? I'd be interested in Ealdgyth or Sandy G's response. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, although it could possibly be left uncited under common knowledge, if you cite it, it needs to be to a reliable source. The problem could be solved by appending in addition the NASA site that verifies it, and moving Heaven-above to an external link, as external link requirements are lower than source requirements. Or it could be left uncited and use the common knowledge thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed the Glinx link regarding sightings as common knowledge, and added the NASA applet as a supplementary source in the infobox to back up Heavens-Above. Anything else left to do? Colds7ream (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing this dicussion. I was looking for an alternative source for the claim that the ISS is now visible during daylight. At present this is sourced to Spaceweather.com. Reliability was queried, and the fact that the site's author also works as a contributor to some of NASA's online material has not so far led the reviewer to strike their concern. I haven't come up with an alternative source, but while looking I found this, which appears to show that the European Space Agency thinks Heavens-above is so reliable, they use it to help the public find the ISS, rather than build their own app. It is likewise recommended by the Western Australian observatory. For me this seals the reliability of Heavens-above, so if it is needed as a cite for anything, go ahead.
 * A partial response to Ealdgyth. It seems strange that we are prepared to allow "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property" as a basis for unreferenced facts, but not to allow that as a grounds for contributing to assessing the reliability of a source for a referenced fact. I don't agree on this. My view is that if a plain site observation can be made that confirms something claimed by a source, that should be counted in the source's favour in terms of reliability. I am not suggesting that it is enough on its own, but it should not be disregarded.
 * Back to the 'visible in daylight' claim. First, this is again able to be substantiated by "plain sight" observation - as is demonstrated by a google search, that turns up various blogs and even youtube videos showing the phenomenon. However, I dislike the approach taken in response to my previous suggestion, which implies no citation is better than an allegedly unreliable citation. One day the ISS will be de-orbited, and "plain sight" will no longer apply. The best I can offer so far is Crikey articles posted by journalist Ben Sandilands. Crikey in general is certainly reliable, and Sandilands has posted this.
 * I had been all set to oppose on the grounds of limited use of published books and articles, then I read Colds7ream's comments at the last Peer Review, and was pursuaded. Not sure if I'll have time to look at remaining reliable source issues, but i think they've been narrowed down to a small enough number that i would not let them prevent promotion. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not write policies, I just try to point them out for others. Don't forget the standard at FAC isn't just meeting WP:V or WP:RS, it's "high quality" that fits with the subject. And, unfortunately, the standard isn't that statements MUST be cited, even if to a less than stellar source, but that statements likely to be challenged must be cited. Something that can be observed, well, that really does fall into the "how likely is this to be challenged" category. So, then you get a war between the FA criteria which require higher quality sources and the fact that the information isn't exactly likely to be challenged because it's readily observable by anyone. In the very limited number of cases like this, it is easier to just go with the "not likely to be challenged so doesn't need a cite" rather than kill the nominator trying to find a non-Self-published source. Of course, I can always not give folks advice that will help their nominations pass or not work with them to try to resolve issues without requiring a million hoops to be jumped through, but I do try to work with the various policies, guidelines, and criteria. The whole issue of reliable sources isn't set in stone, and there is a lot of gray area and stuff. If you, as a reviewer, are satisfied that the sources meet the various criteria, that is good. HOwever, it may be that what satisfies you, won't satisify other reviewers, so a lot of times I leave sourcing concerns out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (shrugs) Quite honestly, I"m really tired of being dragged through hoops on this FAC, and will just leave the rest of the concerns out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (which, incidentally, was basically where things stood before, except we've managed to whittle the list down a bit more. So, whatever. It's the holidays, and I'm tired and cranky and really need to be doing other stuff, like other FACs, rather than debating this sort of thing. It's off my watchlist, consider the rest of the concerns left up to reviewer descretion. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. It has improved significantly since the last time I saw it. Ruslik_ Zero 14:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments Support'':
 * In the hygiene section the locations of the toilets are said to be in Zvezda and Harmony, but isn't the US toilet in Destiny until Tranquility arrives?
 * In the table of the future modules, I believe that pictures of Rassvet (MRM1) are now available (especially since I saw something about the module arriving in the US for launch preparations) online, but I am unsure of their copyright status, please advise.
 * Also, could we get an image of an MPLM berthed to the station for the PMM?
 * I may have completely missed this, but I do not believe that there is a prominent link for List of ISS spacewalks (a Featured List) in the assembly section or in a see also section for that matter, anywhere in this article? The statistics on the spacewalks and duration would seem relevant enough to be mentioned in this article.

I may have more later, but deal with these at a minimum for my support. -MBK004 00:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All above done, I believe. Colds7ream (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I have supported because in my second look through the article I did not find anything else. Admittedly I review for content accuracy and omissions, but from my reviews of the previous FACs and PRs, it is clearly evident that the improvement of this article is significant and I do not see anything else that should keep the article from becoming Featured. -MBK004 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

'''Not thrilled with the writing. Strong oppose.'''
 * "golden" or "gold-coloured"—take your pick, but not both at once.
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "In-between the radiators"—why the hyphen?
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd remove this comma: "modules, arranged".
 * Done. You do realise these three are in the alt text, right? User:Eubulides, alt text king, has cleared these. Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the clumsy noun plus -ing constructions; please audit throughout.
 * Sorry, what? Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you visit the link I provided? After working through the exercises you'll have a much better idea. I corrected about four in the diff. Tony   (talk)  01:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Watch out for repeated links, sciency "telegram" language", and the overuse of initial caps.
 * It's a scientific/technological article, there's not much that can be done to avoid this.
 * There's everything to be done to avoid this dreadful telegram habit of omitting "the". It is not English. Scientists think they are free to do it, for some reason. Journal editors seem to be too ignorant to call a halt to it. Tony   (talk)  01:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead is gigantic. How long is the full article? I'm tuckered out after a few paragraphs. Tony   (talk)  13:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is large, because in every previous assessment people complained that it was too short. Now others are complaining its too long. As I've said before, I clearly can't please everybody. Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. Too short, too long, there is no pleasing everybody. Every review we seem to alternate on this issue. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The length of the lead seems appropriate to me. It does contain a high proportion of lengthy and/or technical words, which may make the reading more of a slog. But it is a technical article so some of that is unavoidable.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – I think that all instances of "long-term", "daily", "safe" and "efficient, reliable" can be removed from first paragraph of the lead without harming the content. Most of these are relative terms and hence vague, while the "daily" seems unnecessary. That should help shorten it a little. – RJH (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was bold and performed some judicious trimming.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You called me back promtply ... so ... the rest is done too? My diff and the points above were examples from just the top. Tony   (talk)  01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, if you find anything you don't like (no-one else has seen any problems with the prose), don't hesitate to be WP:BOLD and fix it. Colds7ream (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Current Status: 7 supports to 1 oppose, sourcing issues dealt with by several corrections and reviewer comments. WP:CONSENSUS has been established, I believe. Colds7ream (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Great job! This is a very thorough and informative article!! Much improvement since the last FAC. Reywas92 Talk 03:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) It's not a vote-count. Please read the instructions, which clearly point out that addressing opposes is what matters, not the number of supports.

(2) That "no one" else has bothered to critique the prose is neither here nor there. Thanks for asking, but I won't "be bold"; reviewers are under no obligation to do your work for you; I would rather spread my reviewing around more of this avalanche of FACs. Thus, it is up to you to bring the work up to standard.
 * See below. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Spot check of one short section:
 * Another noun plus -ing that is a little clumsy (didn't I point this out above?): "With the fall of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War and Space Race".
 * See below. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Similar budgetary difficulties were being faced by other nations with space station projects, prompting American government officials to start negotiations with partners in Europe, Russia, Japan, and Canada"—spot the redundant word. You could probably lose "government" (officials aren't corporate, usually). Were those countries partners before they took up the US offer to collaborate?
 * Nope, I like 'government'. Makes the paragraph clearer to new readers. Rest dealt with. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * multi-national: no hyphen these days, and no comma after it here.
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't AmEng be used? "programme"?
 * See the many pages of discussion on the talk page and talk page archives. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For next time, "however" is usually not better stuck in the middle of clauses. Tony   (talk)  11:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am more than aware of the fact that it's not a vote count, thanks (in any case, its not a count, its a landslide). Lots of people have looked at and cleared the prose; the trouble we have now is yourpet hates which no-one else has a problem with; this is the problem with the FAC process; one person can bring up an issue which no-one else thinks is a problem, and it can fail a perfectly good article despite what everyone else has said. The idea here is to form a consensus - what you're saying is, in effect, "no, I just don't like it, take it away!" - and the worst part is that it'll probably be failed because of it. We've written an extensive, detailed article on a current, large and dynamic topic, which has taken one and a half years to compile (with extensive discussion of the en-GB and en-US issue if you'd bothered to look on the talk page), and you don't like it because you personally don't like 'ing' words? Please. Give me a break. I'm not looking for you to do 'my' work for me. I just want you to recognise the work that has already been put in; I'd be grateful if you weren't so patronising. This little paragraph has probably earned the article a fail, but heck, it needed to be said, and for my stress I needed to say it. Enjoy. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While Tony raises some vaild points that should be addressed, comments should not be nit-picky either. Although FAs are Wikipedia's best work, which this article clearly is, they are not Wikipedia's completely perfect work. When discussing prose issues, try to point out more things that are either wrong or confusing and fewer things that are perceptions of style. Reywas92 Talk 16:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I have again asked for assistance at GOCE, if one of them might look specifically over the issues mentioned by Tony. I'm not sure which GOCE editors last reviewed the article, otherwise I would have contacted them directly. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that - I've had the article listed there for months with not so much as a whiff of a response. Colds7ream (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, in addition to Tony1's concerns, there has been no image review as far as I can tell. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no image expert, but since nearly every single image is PD from NASA, the only problems I found were File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg, which appears to be copyrighted, being a Russian-taken image; File:MRM-1 at RSC Energia.jpg, also a copyrighted Russian image; and File:ISScrewtimeutilization.png, which was made by a Wikipedian but is unlabeled. Reywas92 Talk 20:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg - FUR that I support, but
 * File:MRM-1 at RSC Energia.jpg - FUR. I say we remove this one. Image doesn't seem required. The americans will take a picture of it once it is docked to the station, so it is replaceable.
 * File:ISScrewtimeutilization.png - I have notified the author on his talk page, but he seems to have disappeared since october. This will likely need to be done again, or have to be removed.
 * —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll happily remove the utilisation graph, but the MRM-1 image was added in response to a request by MBK004 above. And I think comments from other reviewers rather render Tony's concerns opposed. Colds7ream (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not contest the fact that a MRM1 image would be nice, I just don't think that this MRM1 image is allowed per our NFCC (because it is replaceable at some point in the future). And MBK004 did say: "I am unsure of their copyright status, please advise." It probably shouldn't even be in the MRM-1 article. I cannot find an alternative image of MRM1 btw. It has entered the States, but only NASA images of the transportbox arriving at KSC have been published, and none of checkout images. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the image from the article and have tagged it as disputed FUR. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Images should now be cleared, unless someone disputes the FUR of the MIR+shuttle image. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you spent more time fixing the prose, or better, finding an independent copy-editor, and less time sniping at me, the article might by now have been sufficiently improved. Instead, you harp on about the number of supports. Please read the instructions, which make it clear that this is not the essence of the process. In other words, a zillion supports count for nothing if there are still issues to be fixed. Tony   (talk)  00:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Tony, I'm not sure that's fair. Of course the number of supports are not the essence of the process, but i don't think that was what Colds7ream's 29 Dec remark implied. The instructions do say: For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:
 * actionable objections have not been resolved;
 * consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
 * insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. The range of supports is therefore relevant to assessing the building of consensus, and opposes are not the key issue; rather, "actionable objections" that "have not been resolved" are important. I'm not saying that all objections necessarily have been addressed, but i thought Colds7eam's initial comment was OK to test the waters. Colds7ream, Tony is correct in that the prose could still improve, and I'll see what i can do. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right: the last para says it all. Did we really need to wade through that huge quotation to get to the relevant bit? Tony   (talk)  02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can an editor who knows about the construction look at this - does the clause "which added..." refer to the actions of Expedition 1, the mission objective of STS-97, or some combination of these? It isn't clear.
 * Comments Support
 * "...two Russian Strela cargo cranes, used for transferring parts and spacewalking cosmonauts around the exterior of the Russian Orbital Segment,..." Likewise this is unclear. Should this read "used for transferring parts by spacewalking cosmonauts..."? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More. "The station provides crew quarters for each member of permanent Expedition crews, with two 'sleep stations' in the Russian Orbital Segment and four spread around the rest of the station, which will eventually be moved into Tranquillity when it is added to the station." Can someone check whether this means the four spread around the station will be moved to Tranquillity, or all six? Current punctuation implies all six - just wanted to check this.
 * Update needed for this I think: "This will increase to five in early December, when another Soyuz, carrying Oleg Kotov, Timothy Creamer and Soichi Noguchi arrives."
 * Finally, there is this sentence in the lead: "The various sections of the station are controlled by several mission control centres on the ground, including MCC-H, TsUP, Col-CC, ATV-CC, JEM-CC, HTV-CC and MSS-CC." This is an avalanche of inappropriate acronyms for a lay reader, and not necessary in the lead. I suggest this be changed to "The various sections of the station are controlled by mission control centres on the ground operated by the participating space agencies."

I have now been through with some copyediting and simplification. If my five points above can be addressed, I am a support. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cleared these, I think. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that looks better. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose — sorry. The prose is still not FA standard; there is redundancy ( eg "a course of") and vague uses of "various" and "variety". But, as Tony as already pointed out, there is a bigger problem caused by the plethora of fused participles, perhaps more easily understood as "noun plus -ing". I do not object to their occasional usage but the article is full of them. I am also concerned about concerns about the sources have not been fully addressed. In my humble opinion, the article still needs a thorough another copy-edit and concerns about sources addressed. Lastly, have I missed the image review? Was this done at the last FAC? Graham Colm Talk 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who do you suggest does the copyedit, Graham? I can't, it's my prose, and I see no problem with it. The Guild of Copyeditors is worse than useless in responding to requests, and reviewers here bring up issues with the prose and then do nothing to help. I realise the FAC process is overworked, but if reviewers could be a bit more helpful, or there was more support available, things would improve exponentially. In all seriousness, I'm begging for help here - I CANNOT DO THIS ON MY OWN, and no-one seems to want to help out. I'd cite WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT, but will just be shot down again. I've had it up to here with unhelpful editors in what's supposed to be a collaborative project, and am starting to flirt with thoughts of packing up and leaving. Colds7ream (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been much improved since my review a few days ago. I don't usually like to see extensive CE work during a "live" candidature, but I fully understand the nominator's frustration with regard to the lack of help. Yes, indeed this is a collaborative project, but here, at FAC, I think many reviewers expect most the collaborative work to have already been done. Some of Ealdgyth's reservations about sources remain, but I don't see any major obstacles. With regard to the FAC criteria, I have seen candidates that fall shorter than this promoted, so I ask myself this: Would I be proud to see this on the Main Page? I think so. Graham Colm  Talk 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I've been watching this FAC since the call for help was put out at the GOCE. Just to clarify: it's really difficult to jump into a large article at last moment to clean up prose. It's better to contact copyeditors individually from the list to find one with time and even better, some familiarity with the discipline/field. I work almost exclusively on articles related to the arts, so working on this article with a deadline, is more than daunting. Just thought I'd add an unsolicited opinion. That said, I can spend a little time working through the article bit by bit. First, however, I'd suggest the two back-to-back sentences that begin with "this" (unspecified pronouns) be recast with antecedents. See "This provides" & "This aspect" para 3, in Purpose. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier, I had the article listed on the requests page on GOCE for literally months. No response whatsoever. Colds7ream (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Status check (response to immediately preceding comments).
 * I have now made a third run through copyediting, and picking up some more overlinking.
 * Other editor(s) appear to have weeded out fused participles that were a concern.
 * Though not stated explicitly, I think the comments and actions of User:TheDJ have addressed the matter of images, unless anyone has further concerns.
 * Substantial work has been done to deal with questions of source quality, both in eliminating some sources and improving the level of available information about others. It is hard to gauge from the text above just where the sources are at, so I may get this wrong, but here's my take:
 * Sources queried by Ealdgyth and not subsequently struck out by her:
 * http://www.thespacereview.com/index.html
 * http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn092404.html
 * http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/
 * http://old.spaceonline.tv/isscom/isscom038.txt
 * In addition, Ealdgyth left unstruck http://spaceweather.com/, but stated "Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable".
 * Of these sources, the bobpark refs are now only used to substantiate the fact that Bob Park (a physicist) has made certain criticism of the ISS program. I have suggested that they are reliable for this purpose. The nom has also bolstered this with other more significant refs about criticisms.
 * There is a later list of "Sources requiring discussion" in the FAC discussion - i'm uncertain who put that list there. Although it is later in the review, I think it has been superceded by subsequent discussion and actions by editors including Colds7ream:
 * http://www.heavens-above.com/ - i identified that this site is recommended and used by professional observatories and the European Space Agency. I would rate this as reliable.
 * http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/ has been removed.
 * http://www.glinx.com/~sherm/spacestation_observation.htm has been removed.
 * In other respects the list is the same as that of Ealdgyth, above. It appears therefore that there are three sources still in use in the article queried by Ealdgyth for which only the nom has made any response. I am reproducing those responses here:
 * http://www.thespacereview.com/index.html
 * "About Colds7ream (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"
 * http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/
 * http://old.spaceonline.tv/isscom/isscom038.txt
 * "Simply because these are the only references I can find - they match up with the NASA diagram provided in the ISS reference guide, and I felt that a paragraph based on these would be better than 'the Russian bits have some cool radio stuff too...'. This is the trouble with the ROS - Roskosmos is considerably more secretive than NASA. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)"

Personally I would recommend Colds7ream or others weed out these last three if possible (particularly thespacereview, unless third party publications endorsing it can be found), but if those items are the only sources available on the ROS info, then I'm not sure that weeding them and the associated content out is the best option. Either way I would not hold up the FA on that issue alone. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the summarising, Hamiltonstone. The spacereview reference and statement have already been removed, and the ROS sources are indeed the only ones I can find; I'd rather not remove all the ROS comms data if possible, if only to avoid taking an exclusively US-based viewpoint on the article. Colds7ream (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still tiny images? I fixed two. The map of the world is soooo small: who on earth could make out the text on it? Try centering and boosting massively. If you have control of the original, please enlarge the text. Tony   (talk)  08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh. Fair point. After a certain amount of stuffing around and reading Picture tutorial, I did some resizing of those where i thought greater size was valuable for making out the image content. If I've stomped all over some aspect of how WP tries to present images, feel free to tell me where to read about it, then revert. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not a participant of the FAC process, and really have no knowledge of how it works (and, frankly, I have little interest in it). I mention this point because I'm not going to stick around here to debate my opinion, and I'm not sure that my opinion really counts for anything here. All I really wanted to say is that I don't think that an article that has seemingly been appropriated by some sort of quixotic nationalist interests by imposing the use of British English on it ought to be a Featured Article. If it was a subject tied directly to the UK, or there was some compelling reason to use a nationalistic variety of English, then I wouldn't care, but that's not the situation here. I wish you guys good will in improving the article, especially since it's a subject area that I have a ton of interest in, but this issue really bugs me. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:International Space Station/Archive 7. Colds7ream (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You use that link as though it actually addresses the concern that people are bringing up. Since this is obviously an issue for many people, don't you think that it's worth considering? I'd love this article to be featured, and I'd love to help get it there, but this issue that you've created really wrecks it. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We did discuss it. The result was no consensus to change. It took ages and proved to be a major distraction. The version of English doesn't matter - American can read British English and Britons can read American English. What exactly is the problem here? Colds7ream (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This has got absolutely nothing to do with regard to the FA criteria and I think that the FAC delegates will pay little attention to this point. I quote: The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. Within the English Wikipedia no variety is considered more correct than another. Editors should understand that the differences between the varieties are largely superficial. Which is from WP:ENGVAR. PS. Who are these "many people"? Graham. Graham Colm Talk 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Approve - Meets criteria. — James Kalmar   23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Progress? Graham Colm appears to have partly struck out his concerns. On the image issue, as I commented earlier, unless anyone thinks otherwise the images appear to have been addressed by TheDJ. Graham comments that it needs another copyedit. The specific examples he left in his comment were: "there is redundancy ( eg "a course of") and vague uses of "various" and "variety"." I did a search, found no uses of "a course of" at all, one of "various" that i have removed, and two uses of "variety", both of them appropriate IMHO. I appreciate they were meant to be illustrative, but i was wondering whether that comment is now defunct after recent copyediting, and if so whether it might be struck through? I guess i'm wondering what type of redundancies or other copyediting issues reviewers think remain? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good news! We have an extensive copyedit ongoing! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Work is also underway to replace the Russian comm sources and remove other dodgily-sourced info from the section. A book has been found! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Great article and everything I would expect from an FA.  There isn't a book in the world without a typo, so I don't accept that incredibly minor grammatical errors should hold this up, and fwiw I think the lead is a perfect length for a complex subject.  The whole article also makes a complex subject very accessible.  If I may make one prose suggestion though; all 3 para's of the lead and several of the para's in the next couple of sections all open the same way... Just a thought.  I'd also recommend that the objection listed above should be struck.  Spelling has no bearing on this FAC and the person who did the most work on the article should get to choose. Nice work Ranger Steve (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! :-) I've had a go at dealing with the paragraph starts in the lead - what do you think? Colds7ream (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Wasn't a major issue anyway, but I do think it looks better.  Best of luck with this FAC. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Image check:
 * File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg is non-free content with a fair use rationale. Seems okay though. As of this review, all other images appear to be properly licensed under PD or CC.
 * Image Image:ISS Main Contributors.svg doesn't have 'alt' text.
 * Sorry I missed it.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All images use a clear, detailed caption, except in the Pressurized modules section where no caption is necessary.
 * File:Node 3 in SSPF.JPG has an upper case suffix, but that shouldn't be an issue. All other images are either jpg, png or svg.
 * Optionally, File:MLM - ISS module.jpg and File:TVIS treadmill.jpg could use Information templates on the commons.
 * Apart from possibly the second item, the images seem fine to me.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The contributors map does have alt text, I'm sure: "A world map highlighting Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland in red and Brazil in pink. See adjacent text for details." Also, I've added an info template to File:MLM - ISS module.jpg. Colds7ream (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for File:TVIS treadmill.jpg, image moved to Commons, high res version found, information template added. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All my issues are addressed then.&mdash;RJH (talk)


 * Support Solejheyen (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: The copyedit is largely complete, the only thing remaining is the Russian communications system citations, which are being dealt with at Talk:International Space Station. Colds7ream (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and that's that sorted too. Anybody got anything else they'd like us to fix? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Status. Since I last commented on the status of the article above (7 Jan), several issues have been addressed:
 * Support, my opinion remains unchanged from the previous FAC. -- G W … 20:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Extensive copyediting by User:Truthkeeper88, User:GrahamColm and User:RJHall, as well as ongoing (love that word) maintenance by Colds7ream and some copyediting and further overlink reduction by myself.
 * Queried sources:
 * http://www.thespacereview.com/index.html has been removed.
 * http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/ has been removed.
 * http://old.spaceonline.tv/isscom/isscom038.txt has been removed.

Tony's strong oppose precedes all these changes; everything else looks in order. For reviewers' information. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewriting of "communications" section to reflect the jettison of unreliable sources, and at least one new source. The changes are most obvious looking at this diff.
 * Image review has been undertaken; thank you to User:RJHall.
 * I have just re-run the script to check MOSDASHES, and checked dablinks again. All clear.

This article is using a template that is in userspace. Please move this to template space ASAP. Articles should never point to userspace. Karanacs (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, please fix the measurement (meters cubed) which needs to have a conversion. The table on pressurized modules does not have citations; these need to be added for statistics, such as how many of X is present. And we need citations for the projected dates that the rest of the modules will be delivered. The table for that is devoid of citations. I've also made other MOS fixes (sentences shouldn't start with a number that isn't spelled out, etc). At this late stage in the game, I don't expect to see these types of problems. Karanacs (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the template, and the pressurised modules tables - both of them - have a citation or two on every line. There's not a single module uncited. I've also inserted a conversion template for the 1000m3 - is that the only one? I'd also like to say that the reason these things were there is because no-one has said anything about them before. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so prompt. Sorry, I totally missed the citations next to the pictures.  Blame my poor tired eyes - there are a LOT of FACs to run through today. Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.