Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive4

International Space Station

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review as a prelude to our third attempt at reaching Featured Article Status, as I'd like some sets of new eyes to make sure that we've dealt with all of the issues brought up during our FACs (which can be found at FAC 1, FAC 2 and in various sections on the talk page), to ensure we're meeting every single requirement of WP:MOS, to review our referencing, and to have a good overall look at the article to ensure it's as good as it can be.

Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RJH Comments:
 * In the following sentence, "...allowing for equipment to be developed in the relatively safe location of Low Earth Orbit": should it say "evaluated" rather than "developed"? Is new equipment really being designed and built on board the station?
 * I think that some parts of the text can be tightened up. E.g. "Researchers are also attempting to gain a better understanding of" => "Researchers are investigating"; "NASA has indicated a desire" => "NASA wants"; "to gain new insight concerning states of matter, specifically in regard to superconductivity." => "to gain new insight regarding superconductivity."
 * "The station is also anticipating a particle physics experiment" Please fix this anthropomorphization.
 * "The solar array normally tracks the Sun to maximise the amount of solar power. The array is about 375 m2 (450 yd2) in area and 58 metres (190 ft) long." This part switches to singular, followed by plural later in the paragraph. So is this dimension for a single solar array wing? Please clarify this.
 * "...and living equipment." This is odd. Is it meant to indicate equipment used for biological experiments?
 * I agree with the suggestion that the Major Incidents section be forked off to a different article. That information is bound to keep growing.
 * "...it is visible only for brief periods of time." Could this be made more specific? For example,this site says a pass "may last up to 5 minutes or more (between 2 and 3 minutes is more typical)..." The same paragraph could also mention the popular hobby of photographing the station from the ground.
 * Is the marriage of Yuri Malenchenko really considered part of space tourism? The "ISS Golf Event" seems pretty trivial, as does the "Paper aeroplane launch". Could all of these be possibly be merged into a single section that covers such recreation and novelty topics?
 * "The environment on the station is instead often described as microgravity," This could be clearer. Please clarify what this term replaces and that it is describing some low level of acceleration.
 * "creation of by-products from certain materials." Please disambiguate.
 * All above done. Colds7ream (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work so far. Thank you!&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the Purpose section doesn't quite work for me because the same advantage can be derived from unmanned spacecraft such as the HST. I think it needs to explain why it is advantageous to have a human crew present.
 * Can the expression "Long-term expedition crews" be defined before it is used?
 * I'd like to see some mention of materials processing among the experiments being performed.
 * Could you expand on "The atmosphere on board the ISS..."? Is this atmospheric configuration primarily for astronaut comfort? For example, contrast with commercial aircraft flights that use lower cabin pressure to reduce the stress on the cabin. Another alternative was a lower pressure of pure oxygen.
 * In the Space Station section, could you cover the possibility of emergency evacuation?
 * The article is notably lacking a section on criticism, particularly with regard to the discussion about cost versus expected scientific benefits. I think this is essential for neutrality. Yes the "Politics and financing" section links to "International Space Station program", which covers the criticism of the station, but that is not summarized here.
 * I'd like to see a little more coverage of safety issues, such as debris impacts, EVAs and radiation.