Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive1

International Space Station
I have contributed to this article a while ago. Now somebody has asked for a peer review as a preliminary stage to getting it to FAC-status. The main issues the article has are 1. citations and 2. the criticism section (as far as I see it). More input on that article + help resolving problems would be appreciated. Especially in the light of this article being on the front page under the news section quite often, we should make a special effort to get it into perfect shape. Themanwithoutapast 20:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I gave it a quick read-through and so I only have a few comments:
 * I would like it if the first sentence of the page presented a definition of the ISS, rather than listing the agencies involved. I.e. presume the reader knows nothing about it. For example, "The International Space Station (ISS) is a manned research facility that is being assembled in orbit around the Earth," or something better. In fact I'd be sorely tempted to move the list of agencies to the end of the introduction and jump right into the meat of the topic. The list is the least interesting part: it's better to start the article with a bang and try to capture the reader's interest.
 * Has been changed. Still think the partners have to be mentioned upfront in the first paragraph, it is the most important information just like in any joint venture. Themanwithoutapast 07:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree on that: the five space agencies have to be mentioned in the article introduction. // Duccio (write me) 23:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It might be important information in the context of getting the project done, but it makes for exceedingly dull reading. My eyes just skipped right over it. :-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The assemply process is spread between three different sections: the history, a building progress section and the assemly section. Perhaps this can be re-organized into a single logical structure?
 * Too many "planned" in "It was planned to combine the planned space stations".
 * In the "Structures and design" section it discusses a particular orientation of the structures. (I.e. starbord, port, aft-forward). It would be helpful if this was explained in terms of some type of orbital orientation, or else it could state that the directions were chosen arbitrarily.
 * Sun should be capitalized and can be linked to the article.
 * If the Habitation Module was cancelled, how do they plan to accomodate a crew of six? Will they be using a hot-bunking system?
 * Sleeping places are spread throughout the station. There will be 3 in the Russian segment once the ISS is completed and 3 in the US segment. But actually it is not really necessary to have a separate 'bunk' in space, what they do right now for some visitors is just strap their sleeping bag to the wall of a module get into it and sleep. Unity is the preferable location for that. Themanwithoutapast 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My questions were intended primarily to show what the article didn't answer. I guess I should have explained that better. Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Where inline citations are used, it would be preferable if the cite templates were employed to give more information about the link. E.g. cite web.
 * Thanks! &mdash; RJH (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the "Structures and design" section it discusses a particular orientation of the structures. (I.e. starbord, port, aft-forward). It would be helpful if this was explained in terms of some type of orbital orientation, or else it could state that the directions were chosen arbitrarily. &mdash; What do you exactly mean? Something like west-east or nadir? The use of a local coordinate system is mandatory since, when completed, the station's attitude will be fixed with the aft-forward axis laying in the direction of the motion (aka velocity vector), but untill all four photovoltaic modules are in theis definitive position the station's orientation may vary depending on many factors, like the angle between the sun and station's orbit plane. There's a much better explaination than mine if you go here: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/flash/iss_attitude.html &mdash; as you see, we can't use terms like north as what is north today might be west tomorrow... // Duccio (write me) 09:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand that there is a local coordinate system at work, and no I very clearly didn't mean East/West/North/South/Nadir. (Why did you even introduce that?) But the reason for this orientation of the local directions should be explained to the reader. At present the text just tosses out terms such as port and aft-forward without clarifying this particular orientation. If they were chosen by the designers because of the station's expected orbit/orientation upon completion (with forward being in the direction of orbit and down being toward the Earth) then stating such is needed. (Note that I can't read that link you sent me because of my browser's security settings.) Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding, I made the connection between the local coordinate system and the velocity vector explicit in the article. As port and starboard (as well as aft) also might not be obvious to the reader I linked them to their articles, which I will improve in the near future to cover not only the naval use of the terms. The link I provided has been added as a reference using the proper template. Please see if I fully addressed the "Structure and design" point. // Duccio (write me) 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So the forward direction is established by the velocity vector. Are the port/starbord facings with respect to somebody on board turned forward and with their feet toward the Earth? &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as that should be obvious because of the meaning of port and starboard in the naval context I'm not sure I'll be able to find a reliable source stating that explicitly... // Duccio (write me) 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really that obvious. Port could be oriented toward the Earth, for example, and which side of the truss is "up" or "down"? &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What you would like - if I understood correctly - is a second connection between local coordinates system and orbital orientation, stating that the station doesn't roll freely - am I correct? // Duccio (write me) 18:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand it there are two possible orientations that satisfy the port-starbord axis definition in the text. Perhaps a simple graphic showing the both axes relative to the station layout, the orbital velocity and the Earth would work? Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a graphic would probably help a lot. As soon as I'll find one, I'll put it in the article. In case we have difficulties finding one we could see if someone with drawing capabilities can do it for us, I remember there's a place here on wikipedia where you can make similar requests. All the other points you arose seem clear to me, thank you for your review :-) // Duccio (write me) 20:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Requested pictures as well as the Category:Wikipedia requested images templates. Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A few more comments, hopefully of some use:
 * The history section states that, "the science conducted aboard was limited due to the crew size of two." It would be helpful if the text put this in perspective by explaining what a crew of two spends most of their time doing. (I.e. repair work.)
 * It would be good to have some mention of the concerns that were generated during the two-man space walks; the entire ISS crew. Also that the ISS was deliberately designed to minimize the number of space walks required for construction.
 * I think "logistics&maintenance" needs spaces.
 * I'm puzzled by the statement that: "In contrast to common belief, the overall majority of costs for NASA are not incurred for initially building the ISS modules and external structure on the ground or for construction, crew and supply flights to the ISS." Isn't that almost the entirety of the costs? It never explains where the majority of the costs are being spent.
 * Yes that point should be made clearer. The majority of the costs is in spacecraft operations and maintenance, that is the thousands of people on the ground and the facility costs that have to be paid for that are not related to building the modules or crew and supply flights. Roughly stated spacecraft operations amounts to 65% of the overall costs, 15 % is building the modules and other segments on the ground and the rest is for supply ships, ATV and HTV development, COTS etc. The Shuttle fixed costs (some 3-4 billion per year) are not included into that calculation as they are technically not ISS costs (although the Shuttle is only used for ISS construction right now). Themanwithoutapast 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you take this for FAC, they may complain about the amount of text inside parentheses. You might want to rewrite some parts of the text to reduce that issue.
 * There are a few punctuation issues. E.g. "...very often cited as USD, ESA, the only agency actually ESA, the only agency actually stating potential overall costs on its website estimates 100 billion EUR)".
 * RJH (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the comments RJH, I hope someone can start implementing them into the article. I will only have some time to do work on the article in a couple of days. Themanwithoutapast 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm glad to be of some assistance. :-) &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)