Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mir spacewalks/archive1


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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 18:21, 17 May 2011.

List of Mir spacewalks

 * Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to put this list forward for consideration as a Featured List because I believe it cover the topic accurately & fully and meets the Featured List Criteria. I also believe I have dealt with all points raised in the closed peer review. It's very much based on the List of ISS spacewalks. Many thanks in advance to any reviewers! Colds7ream (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment An interesting list on an area I know very little about..
 * In the lead why is Extra-vehicular activities in bold?
 * In the list is there any reason why the logical process of one sub head and table per year is not followed in 1987–1988? - you could easily put the three for 1987 in one table & the four for 1988 in a separate one.
 * The tables for 1993 and 1998 are a different width than the others - any reason?
 * In the references some of the isbns have multiple hyphens (eg 978-0-387-23011-5.) when others have single hyphens (eg 978-0071372305) ?&mdash; Rod talk 17:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review, glad you find it interesting! :-) In response to your questions, I emboldened EVAs after it was suggested in the peer review that 'List of Mir spacewalks' wasn't a good opening line, and I wanted to highlight the fact that the list concerns them; I've no major objections if you think it needn't be. I've split the 1987/1988 table up, but I think the table widths are due to the shorter lengths of the summaries in those tables; if you know of a way to force them to all display as the same width, I'd be very grateful. As for the ISBNs, I've simply entered them as I found them in the publications in question; again, if they need to be put in a standard format or something, I've no objections. Colds7ream (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think EVA should be bold according to the WP:MOS as it is a link to a different article. I have a look at Manual of Style (tables) but I'm sure there is a way of making them all the same width but suggest using % (eg 90% width) rather than number of pixels. I also spotted on this look that 1992 doesn't have a title for the Duration column which all the others do.&mdash; Rod talk 07:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reformatted the ISBNs, and I believe the table merge has dealt with the column width issues. The link to EVA is no longer bold. Colds7ream (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: try adding colors for the key to make the table a bit more appealing. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What colour codes would you recommend? Colds7ream (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For † and * color the background of the "Mission" column. Also, I am not sure that splitting every year is ideal since it leaves the likes of EO-24 split over two tables. Can't you merge them? Nergaal (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just completed the merge. I meant what hex codes would you suggest I use? Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been suggested below that the fewer colours involved in the table, the more WP:ACCESSible it is? Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Apologies for taking so long to look at your list, but I hope I can be helpful. Improving the accessibility of an article isn't an "all-or-nothing = pass/fail" process, so I hope you'll understand that my comments are mainly suggestions, not requirements for my support (apart from a couple of things like column headers and alternate text). If you'd like to try out any or all of these suggested changes (you really need to do the column headers), but are unsure, I'm happy to help – either in doing some for you, or in helping if you get into difficulties while trying them out. I know the reviewers here won't complain if the list gets a few edits as a result; improving accessibility doesn't reduce the stability of an article! Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All images have (copious) alt text, which work well with the captions. It is possible someone (not me) may think there is too much alt text, but the effort that has gone into this aspect is commendable.
 * There is always going to be a problem where information is being conveyed purely by visual means, so the use of symbols in the legend is good, but the † symbol is not very accessible, so you could improve that by using the † template, and giving it some alt text.
 * The part about "EVAs conducted during different principal expeditions are indicated by a wide blue separator" is problematical. If someone can't see the wide blue separator, then they will not get the information you intended them to receive. I don't know how to help you because I've followed the link to List of Mir Expeditions and read it; but I'm none the wiser about what a principal expedition is – or how it differs from a non-principal one. I can see that EO-2 and EO-3 are in a different group from EO-4 and EO-5, but I don't understand the significance; and a blind reader probably wouldn't even be able to get that far.
 * The table itself needs some extra markup to identify at least the column headers, . See MOS:ACCESS for the guidance.
 * The table would benefit from extra markup to identify the row headers, . If you're unsure, I've made a short version of your table at User:RexxS/Mir spacewalks, where I've stripped out all of the visual formatting and added the header markup, as well as the dagger template, so you can see what I've done.
 * In general, the simpler the structure and formatting, the more likely a table is to be both usable and accessible – but this is a suggestion, so you can ignore it without penalty if you don't like it.
 * Thanks for taking a look at this, and thank for your kind words on my alt text! I think I've sorted out the dagger signs, and the issue with the principal expeditions was because some of them disappeared. I've restored these, and clarified the description on the List of Mir Expeditions, so hopefully that makes more sense. I've also identified the columns (but how do I make the title row blue again?), but when I set the rows, the table displays weirdly, and I'd like to keep the description cells where they are, so how do I sort this out, please? Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The daggers are good, thank you.
 * I can see now that each EO-X was a different principal mission, and so the separators are redundant. That means that a screen reader won't miss out on the information that is provided only by colour.
 * The markup on the column headers is good - don't forget that they become bold and centred by default when they become headers.
 * Why should the first row have a blue background? (It's the #CCCCFF that produces it.)
 * I can't find the diff where you set the rows, so I can't tell how the table displays weirdly. Could you be a bit more specific about the problem you had? --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This happens:


 * Distressingly, I can't seem to find a place to put it in the code which doesn't result in something similar? Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rowspan and scope are both attributes of the tag, so there's no '|' between them. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How's that looking? I must say, this FLC is turning out to be great - friendly help and advice from everyone and a tutorial on properly coding tables! The FAC people could learn a lot from you folks! Colds7ream (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. It looks good to me. All of the accessibility issues are resolved as far as I can tell. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Question – I see that much of the list is cited to Encyclopedia Astronautica. This is a site whose reliability has been questioned at FAC before, and it was removed from the International Space Station article before it was promoted. Why should it be considered a reliable source when it hasn't been proven reliable at other major content processes?  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, User:MBK004 said here that the website is recommended by NASA's own PAO. On the other hand, the table happily stands on the other references, so if people massively object it can be removed pretty much with impunity. Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say remove it. If there's any doubt, and the table is fully backed by other sources anyway, that seems to me to be the best thing to do.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to argue for keeping it, partly because I personally believe in its reliability, and partly because the other sources are books which will be unavailable to the vast majority of readers - having this website available allows them to check things. Colds7ream (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
 * In intro: is "non-monolithic" the same as "modular design"?
 * Yes, but I can't think of a better way to word it. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about just removing the last part of the sentence ("with a modular design.") since it is already implied by "non-monolithic"? bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What is a 3rd generation space station (or what are 1st/2nd gen.)?
 * 1st & 2nd were monolithic, 3rd non-monolithic. The space station article needs work to support this. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would be good to have a wikilink or footnote or make it more clear in prose that 3rd gen. implies non-monolithic. bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've sorted this out, let me know what you think. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Better but the sentence: With a mass greater than that of any previous space station, Mir was the first of the modular space stations, constructed from 1986 to 1996., makes me wonder: what other modular space stations were there? And what does the phrase "constructed from 1986 to 1996" refer to, to Mir or to "modular space stations"? bamse (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Should "deorbit" be linked to Deorbit of Mir?
 * Yes, done. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Was "technologies required for the permanent occupation of space" the only research interest on Mir?
 * No, they also researched biology, human biology, physics, astronomy, meteorology, as it says prior to the comment on spacecraft systems. The primary aim of the entire programme was the technology development. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence says: "...experiments in biology [etc] in order to [develop space technology]". I read this to mean that the research (in biology, physics, ...) was aimed at space technology and not at general technology development. bamse (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the boldfacing of "Mir" and "Spacewalks" (separated by a paragraph) according to the MOS? I don't think boldfacing of the title (or parts of title) is required or even desired in featured lists.
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the "but" in the sentence "The longest EVA was performed on 17 July 1990, when EO-6 crewmembers Anatoly Solovyev and Aleksandr Balandin left the station to repair their spacecraft, Soyuz TM-9, but encountered difficulties shutting the airlock hatch upon their return."
 * Replaced with 'then'. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure the sentence "EVAs conducted during different principal expeditions are indicated by a wide blue separator." is clear (but I am not a native reader/speaker). Possibly something like "EVAs conducted by different principal expeditions are separated by a ..." would be more clear.
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about: "indicated by a wide blue separator"->"separated by a wide blue line"? bamse (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also changed "indicated"->"separated" which is more to the point in my opinion. bamse (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can "hard docking" be wikilinked or explained (in footnote or text) or is it obvious?
 * I can't find an appropriate article to link to, but I think its fairly obvious. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it mean permanent docking, or something else? bamse (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is the legend repeated after the table?
 * Removed. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are there always two spacewalkers? Were they walking at the same time? Were they exiting/entering together? Can this be discussed in the intro?
 * References 1 and 2 seem to reference almost all spacewalks and should probably be made into general references.
 * You mean just put them as bullets in the references section? Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and put them in a subsection "General" or something like it. I've also seen often used references mentioned in prose in the lead, which could be an alternative. Anyway, this is just a suggestion, so feel free to do whatever you think is best. bamse (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * References 1 and 8 need accessdates.
 * Done. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In which way is ref 5 used?
 * The '15.7 orbits per day'. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on which input values for (Semimajor axis, Mass of sun, Mass of planet)? bamse (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is ref 6 part of ref 3 and is ref 7 part of ref 4?
 * Yes. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So 3 and 4 cite whole books while 6 and 7 only part of those books? Would be good to have page numbers for 3 and 4 as well (unless you really mean to cite the whole books). bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Book references should have page numbers IMHO.
 * What do "EO" and "STS" in the mission names stand for?
 * экспедиция основная (mission primary) and Space Transportation System. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could it be explained somewhere (lead, legend,...)? bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I put it in the legend. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Are the images at the bottom, the only images we have of Mir spacewalks?
 * Yep. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, just wondered whether we could have images for every table entry, i.e. inside the table. Since there are so few, that does not make much sense. I think image galleries are somewhat discouraged in featured content, but here it looks good and adds nicely to the table in my opinion. bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

bamse (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied to some, working on others. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Further improvements. Colds7ream (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.