Wikipedia:Peer review/Mir/archive1

Mir
This peer review discussion has been closed. Hi everybody, I'd like to request that this article be peer reviewed both as part of an ongoing push to Featured Article standards and also as I'd like to record a Spoken version of the article and I'd like to iron out any issues before I do. Any and all comments are much appreciated! Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to say that WikiProject Spaceflight is aware of the external link issues with the Astronautix references - a discussion is ongoing here. Colds7ream (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Astronautix refs have been to archived web pages via the Wayback Machine, so they shouldn't be a concern.  Tyrol5   [Talk]  21:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this important and interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.
 * In the lead watch out for things that are not repeated in the article body. So With a greater mass than that of any previous space station, Mir was the first of the third generation of space stations... but there is not really anything on three generations of space stations in the article (just about the Salyut program). This may be clearer to space buffs, but not the average reader
 * Watch for places where the language could be tightened. FOr example in the lead the owrd station twice in this sentence The cost of the station was estimated by former General Director of the Russian Space Agency Roscosmos Yuri Koptev in 2001 as $4.2 billion over the lifetime of the station, including its development, assembly and orbital operation.[14] - could it just be "over its lifetime"?
 * MOS says to provide English units along with metric (20 tonnes)
 * MOS also says to avoid beginning a sentence with a number so 1100 of 2500 cables required rework based on the results of tests to the ground test model at Khrunichev. needs to be fixed
 * Watch WP:OVERLINKing - the terms Space SHuttle and Atlantis are both linked several times.
 * References should be in numerical order, so fix things like ''fact that the node was equipped with only two Konus drogues, required for dockings, meant that, prior to the arrival of each new module, the node would have to be depressurised, allowing spacewalking cosmonauts to manually relocate the drogue to the next port to be occupied removing one of four outer hatches.[15][6]
 * Use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' (except for a quote within a quote). So fix things like ''Attitude control was maintained by a combination of two mechanisms; in order to hold a set attitude, a system of twelve control moment gyroscopes (CMGs, or 'gyrodynes')...
 * Many reviewers at FAC dislike bullet point lists in most cases - can the people in "International cooperation" be turned into a table or tables? Perhaps list the length of their stay in the table too?
 * FAC also checks for internal consistency on names etc. So as one example is it Shuttle–Mir programme or Shuttle–Mir Program? Since it was an American program, I would use Am. English
 * Avoid needless repetition - having listed all international visitors already in "International cooperation", does "Early existence" really need This period also saw the first international visitors to the station, Muhammed Faris (Syria), Abdul Ahad Mohmand (Afghanistan) and Jean-Loup Chrétien (France). If they should be included, the MOS says it is usually the case to only use last names once someone's full name has been used once.
 * The collision with Progress M34 is mentioned in several places - should it also be in a header (Shuttle–Mir and collision?)
 * MOS says not to use amepersands in place of "and" especially in headers
 * Article feels a bit repetitive to me - some is unavoidable, but the M34 collision is mentioned often, as is the Mir-Shuttle program, and other things
 * A copyedit would be a very good idea,
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)