Wikipedia:Featured article review/International Space Station/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 02:08, 12 September 2011.

Review commentary
(Note: This was filed on July 28 and never listed. User:Brad initiated discussion on the talk page on the 18th, so the matter was discussed properly first.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This review was started by an inexperienced editor on June 28th and I happened across the article some days later and saw that it had been done incorrectly. Therefore I started the talkpage notification and was not sure what to do about this false started FAR. I think the whole process should be rebooted back to the time of my talkpage notice. Brad (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Notified: Spaceflight,WikiProject International Relations,WikiProject Europe/ESA ,WikiProject Russia/Technology and engineering in Russia task force,WikiProject United States,WikiProject Japan/Science and technology task force,WikiProject Russia,WikiProject Japan,WikiProject Robotics,WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology,WikiProject Chemistry

and a bunch of others, which is unconventional, but the ISS could use some help from experts who may be interested. There are plenty of specialties the ISS reaches into. I haven't told WikiProject Canada however, I did approach them to raise the idea of the article being included within Canada's scope, the Canadian Space Agency is after all a partner. I'm worried about my comments a few months back about the Robotic arms used on the space station, Canadarm2 it's called. I think I may have suggested about attaching the arms to a Japanese Space agency torso, maybe that's why I haven't got a response, but looking at the TV, maybe they're busy at the moment. There are still new sections such as Robotics and Computers that need help, amongst others.


 * Notified: 9 of top 10 contributors Colds7ream,TheDJ,Mnw2000,Themanwithoutapast,Hamiltonstone,Reubenbarton,MBK004,Pax85,Dawnseeker2000

The article's lead doesn't place the international space station in context amongst other space stations, I've expanded other sections with things like 'The Russian Orbital Segment is the eleventh Soviet-Russian space station.' which are quite stable, but can't put the overall context into the lead. If a child read this article for their homework, they couldn't answer the question 'is the ISS the fourth, seventh or tenth space station'. It's met with comments along the lines of We have to be careful making to many changes, we don't want to make it so bad it loses its FA status. and As this is a featured article, it is important to maintain stability  which are good reasons not to update or improve the lead, however I've asked if there are other reasons, and have waited weeks for any response besides. The existing lead has errors, brought up on the talkpage, discussed by editors, implemented, and overturned. The reasons are addressed, despite their vagueness, and the updates are still overturned without discussion. Generally these updates are overturned by editors who won't offer any reasoning, and don't demonstrate any knowledge of the issue, or any willingness to do the most cursory checking, and won't enter into any discussion. Although, the edit summary gets a great deal more use than the talkpage. Especially this last month. It's an interesting read.

The issues like this, which aren't so much warring, but warring like, don't occur anywhere else in the article. Entire sections like costs are completely redone in my work, (refs here aren't yet done AT ALL, I've been begging for help), new sections are well accepted like end of mission, deorbit, maintainence, education and cultural outreach, docking, costs, and media(temporary section that one, to stop warring behavior) but what of their prose ? I have repeatedly asked for help updating this article, recently someone seems to have used 'search and replace' to fix text through the article, and this is helpful I guess, but help of substance is lacking. After being bitten too many times for touching the lead, I leave errors alone, sometimes even blatantly obvious ones, even with PR simple errors aren't fixed, few are willing to take a look at this article with anything more than a spell-checker, some editors are assisting, however after an edit war broke out between them and the page was frozen, they've not been as involved. They are very good editors too. Those two ironically aren't the problem at all.

The spell checker thing is about keeping the article in British english, which I'm fine with, I don't care because I'll convert text to Hindi, Japanese, Spanish or anything else that is necessary, but the ENG:VAR is used to exert ownership it seems to me and to some other editors. It's a source of great contention as the archives show, and rears it's ugly head from time to time, with no definitive explanation as to why it is British. The wikiproject list for the article shows it is of interest to a number of groups. It just seems to me that it is used by non-contributing editors as a tool to strike at each other. I couldn't care less, as it doesn't actually effect me. If it did, surely it would effect all of my contributions rather than just the lead.

The article suffers from contention, and FA status and ENG:VAR:OWN are the weapons of choice. The ISS is the epitome of technology to many people, it needs more respect than this. To Japanese Industry, Kibo is a design award winner. Less war, more people who at least read the first three paragraphs rather than check them for changes. Few people read anything after the lead in this article, I've got used to that. It's fine by me, I can work in peace and quiet with good editors who do take time to read it.

The hierarchy of the index was updated to include all the new sections, but some were thrust haphazardly about without explanation. I haven't fixed all of it, though I have explained reasons for the initial hierarchy and asked for discussion to no real avail. For example, The ISS is a unique laboratory providing long term access to space and microgravity. However, Microgravity isn't part of 'purpose' or 'science' it goes along with the power supply and computers as if it were generated on board artificially by the structure. That's Sci-Fi. I've asked why, to no avail.

Citations are woeful. Lots of sections are factual, up to date and correct, but incomplete on refs I expect. I'm quite responsible for a good bit of that. Some I took time with, some were rushed, maybe some need refs. Generally it's outdated refs or no refs for this article. But there are plenty of originals still good.

Neutrality was one of the main reasons I took to this article. Another editor described it as reading like a NASA brochure. It's gotten a good deal better, but has a long way to go. WP:OWN and wars aren't helping. Even though people are resisting improvement, it's still above FA level for NEU I think. The Japanese Laboratory is the Largest and best maintained on the station, but gets little coverage. NASA is giving up management of most of it's onboard science, but I'm weeks away from even mentioning that yet. I spend too much time making appeals to arbitration PR and FAR stuff, which I hate. I love to edit, and discuss with other editors, and reach outside the project for input from people and groups with nothing to do with wiki.

The Canadian space agency gets zip coverage, and a subsection of structure covering their wonderful robotics is yet to come. (they are so cool and look so good, they move like inchworms across the station, repositioning themselves) anyhow, if the homework asked how many robots are on the ISS ? who knows. It's worse than the old costs section.

Currently the lead does not prepare the reader for the detail in the subsequent new sections. Draft corrections are held back on prose or FA.

It's been pointed out to me that the prose I write to update the lead is one reason why the drafts are unacceptable. So it follows that the prose of the sections I have written, substantially expanded, or updated are not in the same prose as the lead. I've asked for assistance changing the prose of the sections I have written, to have their prose match the lead so the article is consistent, but I've had little or no assistance there. For some time I've asked the people who state prose, grammar, style and so forth is a problem, to expand on their comments, with little success. It needs correction, I agree the prose is not the same. Sometimes the comments are more vague, such as it doesn't sound as good or read as well. Either one part or the other needs correction.

There are faults in this article a blind mans dog would trip over and I won't mention them, they're 'low hanging fruit' as another editor put it. No knowledge of the ISS is needed to catch these. It's interesting to see editors overturn edits without reading what they are putting back, or manage to look at the page without seeing simple problems, forget familiar knowledge, you don't need your reading glasses for one of them. I won't mention them, I'd like to actually see anything in this article get fixed. (if your worried I'm not mentioning errors, I've already pointed out just under a gazillion on the talkpage, it's too verbose as it is) Right now, I am curious if it actually meets this FA glass ceiling editors always talk about. But I am more interested in the article being improved. Roll up your sleeves or get out of the way.

Do I talk alot ? yes? please for the love of God help harness this superhuman power for good rather than evil. :D Ok people, help me with these issues, I don't actually want FA removed, although it would be a good wakeup. I just want help, and FA to hold. I want to continue to improve this article with real editors who have real reasons and real discussions PLEASE! No more 'I can't believe they're not editors', GIMME some real help. Or just help keep unhelpful people out of the way. Penyulap  talk 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I see a few little things and you bring up some good points but none of these seem to be a reason to drop this article from FA status IMO and most are easily fixed.
 * Kumioko comments
 * 1) Citations in the lede (normally not needed because the information would be in the body of the article, the lede just summerizes info already there)
 * 2) Some dead links throughout(16 for example)
 * 3) Some citations missing (citation needed tag in the Origins section)
 * 4) Some citation formatting work needed (for example 164, 213, 229
 * 5) Why are all the pictures on the right? Can we switch them around a little? --Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I want to offer my sincerest thanks for your comments Kumioko Penyulap   talk 20:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The article needs a little FA maintenance, that's all. I see no valid reasons to bring this to FAR. Graham Colm (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Graham Colm comments
 * Agree entirely with Graham - this sort of stuff could very easily be dealt with in Talk or PR, there's no reason to bring it to FAR whatsoever. Colds7ream (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, it now is being dealt with properly on the talk page - User:Brad101 is going through the correct procedure on the talk page in the section 'Featured article quality has deteriorated.', and the issues are being dealt with. I suggest this FAR be closed and the issues be dealt with via the talk page; we can always open another FAR if needed at a later date. Colds7ream (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article fails 1e. Penyulap   talk 18:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. This is not edit warring, and no radical changes have been introduced. All I see is FA maintenance and a little fine-tuning going on. I suggest this FAR should be closed now.Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't get it, wouldn't the frozen article make it hard for people to do the FAR a month earlier ? I'll have to remember that one. Penyulap   talk 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the guidance in the docs for FAR is too open to interpretation, as in 'ongoing' edit wars and behavior. The Docs don't help you the admins don't help you, some editors don't help you but many do, I think it's ironic how un-cooperative and un-informative wikipedia can get. No wonder so many other good editors DGAF and don't stick around. 'Nonsense'. Damn right. When your right your right, and Graham, your right. The whole A-Z of wikipedia. Penyulap   talk 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's my take on what needs fixing:


 * There are several unsourced statements scattered about, mostly near the end.
 * Paragraph 2 of "Assembly" is almost entirely unsourced.
 * "Assembly" and "Microgravity" need a copy edit. Way too many sentences begin with "the".
 * Way too many bulleted lists: "Cancelled modules", "Microgravity", "Mission control centres", "Utilisation rights" and "Legal aspects and costs" all have bulleted lists.
 * Some of the "see also"s have periods at the end when they shouldn't.
 * The Docking Schedule table is missing a few footnotes.
 * Underneath "docking schedule" is a stray "I" with a footnote. What is this?
 * I see several "currently"s and "as of"s, leading to potentially dated info. These should be fixed.
 * Under "Space environment" — "Large, acute doses of radiation from Coronal Mass Ejection can cause radiation sickness and can be fatal. Without the protection of the Earth's Magnetosphere, interplanetary manned missions are especially vulnerable." is unsourced.
 * Underneath "Anomalies" — "Unexpected problems and failures have impacted the station's assembly time-line and work schedules leading to periods of reduced capabilities and, in some cases, could have forced abandonment of the station for safety reasons, had these problems not been resolved." is unsourced. This is also a one-sentence paragraph.
 * What makes Heavens Above a reliable source?
 * There are also some "space news" sites that I would like further comment on as to their reliability.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sincerest thanks for your assistance Ten Pound Hammer (and your attention seeking otters too) Penyulap   talk 11:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1a: There are multiple short paragraphs and sections consisting of only one or two sentences or a single paragraph in the case of sections. There are bulleted lists that should be turned into prose. Cleanup tag is present. (Somehow forgot to paste this in from the talk page. Brad (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
 * 1c: There are eight dead links to sources and several citation needed tags. There are multiple "update needed" tags. There is an over reliance on a single source of information (NASA) and several sources that are questionable in meeting the requirement of "high-quality and reliable".
 * 2b: There are many short sections that are creating a long and complicated TOC in addition to the problems they're creating with criteria 1a. IMO the article needs an entire section overhaul.
 * 2c: Citations are chaotic in their consistency. There is a mixture of date formatting (2011-03-25 vs 25 March 2011 etc), bare urls, and missing publisher information.
 * MOS: Fails MOS:Images for overcrowding, stacking, pics pushing down into sections below, text sandwiching and sometimes overwhelmingly large displays. Overall there are 49 media files (not including flag icons) consisting of pics, diagrams and video. Fails MOS:LINK for overlinking of common terms or items that are not helpful to the reader for understanding more about the article. Fails WP:EXT for external links.
 * note The above problems are what I listed with the talk page notice. Since then some of it may have been resolved but the article is on my watch list and not much has been going on lately. Brad (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Many sincere thanks Brad101, for you comments here, there, and on you talkpage, it's a huge help to me. Even though there is nothing to stop me returning and working on these, I won't, as I don't feel I'm ready, I'm still a bit steamed about the article (I took a month break). My own draft looks a little contentious in parts, so I can't put it up yet. I still have to redraft it a few times into calmer wp:gibberish first. Penyulap   talk 10:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping colds7ream would have time in his schedule this week to spruce up the article. I'd love to see the 4 new modules added to the launch schedule, or at least be able to discuss it. I won't do it myself as it means changing the lead as well, and that just causes trouble. The lead always gets stuck back in the microwave and the 'back to 2009' button gets pressed. It's happened to me heaps of times, I'm sure my edits must annoy some other people, so I'll pass for now. Penyulap   talk 04:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can we get some updates/comments from the above editors on whether this article should move to FARC? I see a couple of editors saying that FARC is not necessary, but I see other editors have posted lists of needed improvements. I also see that the article has dead link, citation needed and update needed tags currently in place, which will need to be fixed before the article is kept as a FA. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC In the initial hours after my talk page notice there was work done on the media and overlinking. Since then I've not seen much work going on. Brad (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dana boomer, thank you for your interest, the 1st and 2nd largest contributors positions are sort-of explained here Penyulap   talk 15:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references, prose, MOS compliance and images. Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - So long as I get the go-ahead from Colds7ream, or he doesn't seem to care, I'll most likely help turn the article into a sub FA worksite, a condition that will persist for more than a year I expect. Until then, I'll add new ideas to my sandbox. I'm quite appalling at referencing, and given the amount of information I find from other language sources, that will not change until I learn how, or someone helps me. The only way I know to update and improve the article would involve a lot of major surgery, missing (english) refs and a very different look. Penyulap   talk 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist far too many problems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist And what a shame. It took years to get the article featured and only 18 months for it to deteriorate. Some work was done on MOS Images and MOS Link but that is the only extent of the effort so far. Brad (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article's largest ever contributor, Colds7ream, has left a note on the articles talkpage here His work has been of the highest standard, and he now has less time for editing because he is saving lives in the real world. Penyulap   talk 01:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist There are many valid concerns by many experienced editors which can't be addressed immediately as we do not have sufficient labor resources at the present time. It will take a year or more in my opinion to update and improve the article to FA standard. Penyulap   talk 01:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.