Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Interferometry Mission/archive1

Space Interferometry Mission
I first expanded this stub in November, when I was a relatively inexperienced Wikipedian, since then it has seen some minor cleanup edits by various editors. The other day I came back to it and did a large expansion. The article is pretty thorough now. I made a some notes on some things it needs on the talk page, some of which are already done. Aside from those I would like to expand the section on the instruments a bit. Some of the sections, including the lead, still need a copy edit (hopefully by someone unaffiliated with the article), I am slowly going over it myself too. Any comments and/or edits would be appreciated, particularly is the article understandable to someone with little or no knowledge of the topics discussed? IvoShandor 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I assessed this B class myself, if anyone disagrees, change it please. My plan is, this peer review, GA, then FA. IvoShandor 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Sdsds
I had not seen this article before, and knew nothing of the subject mission. I was led here by an entry on the Portal:Space exploration/Things you can do page. This is a very well crafted article! It cites a sufficient number of reliable sources, has nice images including both photos and diagrams, the article structure is good, and it seems (to a naive reader at least) fairly comprehensive. Congratulations!
 * Reviewer Background
 * Overall
 * Thank you. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead could be improved. The phrase, "American Space Agency, NASA" is non-standard. Its capitalization (at least) should be changed. Also, the first paragraph doesn't really mention that this is a planet-hunting mission. Yet that is the incredibly interesting and notable aspect of this mission! It should be mentioned prominently, like in the very first sentence, even.
 * Lead section
 * Any other comments on the lead, I will institute your suggestion. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this section, which has numerous sub-sections, starting with a one or two sentence introduction, rather than a four paragraph introduction. In essence the section needs a "lead" of its own, so readers can decide if they want to read the section carefully, skim it, or skip forward in the article.
 * "Development" section
 * This will be incorporated per your suggestion. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this sub-section be retitled simply, "Launch". It should cover the planned date of the launch, but also (as it does) the launch vehicle(s) being considered and the launch location. It could cover how the sizing of the spacecraft and the intended orbit limit the selection of the launch vehicle. Also, although Shuttle and existing EELVs might be the only options today, since launch isn't today has there been citable consideration of using newer launch vehicles not yet available, e.g. SpaceX Dragon or ISRO GSLV or Ariane?
 * "Launch date" sub-section
 * Nice catch, of course. : ) IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit deserves the amount of discussion it gets. But reading the article I still don't fully understand it. What paramters set the location for the satellite? Why will it trail by 95 million km instead of 100 million km or 50 million km? Also, why is the rate given in AU/year but the final distance in million km?
 * "Mission" section
 * Further explanation necessary, roger that. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I sense the article could use a concluding section. Perhaps tying the work into other missions and research. How does this mission compare with the research which just these past days has gotten attention for finding an possibly Earth-like exoplanet, etc.? Alternately, maybe what it needs is a "Criticisms" section. Surely someone, somewhere, is dis-satisfied with the results of the mission definition process?
 * Ending
 * Perfect, I was struggling with this, there are plenty of intricately tied in missions to talk about in a brief conclusion, two or three paragraphs good you think? IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a great article. Best of luck in moving to FA status! (Sdsds - Talk) 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Last thoughts


 * Added comments above, thanks again. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)