Wikipedia:Peer review/Sokol space suit/archive1

Sokol space suit
Self nominating this for peer review after a (probably deserved) rejection for feature status. I believe it's 98% of the way there, though.

Still, I think it's well researched and the pictures are GPL or from NASA (copyright free). It's only going to fall down on some points of grammar I may have missed.

All comments welcome.

Catsmeat 13:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks quite good, at least to me. The only thing I can think to add would be to link up some of the units to descriptive pages. (E.g. psi, atmospheres and ectopascals.) You could also mention museums where the suit is on display, if any. &mdash; RJH 16:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Two major concerns and some minor comment/questions
 * References. They are satisfactory, but not great. Ideally the article should use footnotes, don't be afraid to tell the reader where you got what information from. That's right, the reader does't want to go through four books to read more about that aspect or verify something. The "Wired Magazine" should be in the "references", not the "external link" (actually it should be a footnote to the reference section). External links are just recommended readings, not references.
 * Pacing. The article starts out wonderfully. Then it hits the "Sokol Variants" and falls apart. The article goes from nicely written, prose descriptions to short, choppy sections. First, the "Sokol Variants" section doesn't have any text - there is an opportunity there to describe the common themes of the suits before going into detail about the specific variants. And I don't even think this section needs sub-sections. The "Other Users" section is very short and could easily be merged with the "Chinese Use" section. The "Collectors' Market" could even be merged with those Other Uses section.
 * Consider switching the "Chinese space suit" image with the "Expedition 7" image. The "Expedition 7" seems more appropriate for the "Operational Use" section and the "Chinese space suit" for the the "Description" section. Questions: "The Sokol is officially described..." who says it is official? the designers? the saftey board? the government? Is the "As of the end of 2002..." a sentence or a paragraph?
 * Consider this layout: User:Maclean25/sandbox. Though there still are some very short paragraphs that could use expanding, for example, there must be more to say about the British experience with them. --maclean25 07:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)