This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to put the ISS article up for PR once again as a prelude to a fourth FAC, in an effort to prevent the troubles we've had with the last three. The plan is to iron out every single niggle we can find, so as to be able to present an article for FAC that is as near to 'perfect' as is possible in the Wiki framework. As a result, I've messaged each editor who commented in one of the recent PRs, GANs and FACs, in addition to
WikiProject Human spaceflight. What I'd like is for everyone to state whether they feel their original concerns have been dealt with, if they have any new concerns, and if they feel the article will meet the FA criteria. This will, hopefully, give us some confidence and a reasonable support base at FAC if the article does meet the requirements. Your comments are greatly appreciated!
Colds7ream (
talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
PRs:
3,
4,
5
GANs:
4
FACs:
1,
2,
3
Question I looked at my oppose back in March - it was based on the fact that there is an abundance of non-web material that was not consulted for this article. Entire books have been written on the station, but none of them had been consulted. The article was based primarily on websites, etc. How has this been rectified? Awadewit ( talk) 04:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
RJHall comments:
Thanks for addressing most of my concerns in the prior review.— RJH ( talk) 16:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I searched for publications about ISS and some results are here. One book dead link was published in 2008. Ruslik_ Zero 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Quick image comments: Hi, I am a tad busy these days, so I cannot check all the images but I note that the following images are still used since my last check and repeat the issues here.
Comments - The prose needs to be improved before the article is renominated. The grammar is generally okay, but the flow of the prose is poor, which makes the article a chore, rather than a pleasure to read. It is not engaging. There is a problem with over-linking and ( Italy, Earth, Moon and Sun, are examples. The writing is often vague and I lost count of the number of occurrences of "various" and "variety". Many time-sensitive phrases also occur such as "8 years and 329 days" and "currently aboard". Other odd sentences and phrases include:
And in the same sentence there is "a wide variety" and "as well as". In fact the whole article would benefit from checking for redundancy, I recall having seen at least one occurrence of "in order to".
James, I hope these comments are useful, please don't take this personally but I think the article would benefit from fresh input—you might have grown too close to it. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
Best wishes. Kablammo ( talk) 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Update:
Just to keep everyone updated:
In the meantime, anyone got any comments on issues not already covered? Colds7ream ( talk) 13:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to put the ISS article up for PR once again as a prelude to a fourth FAC, in an effort to prevent the troubles we've had with the last three. The plan is to iron out every single niggle we can find, so as to be able to present an article for FAC that is as near to 'perfect' as is possible in the Wiki framework. As a result, I've messaged each editor who commented in one of the recent PRs, GANs and FACs, in addition to
WikiProject Human spaceflight. What I'd like is for everyone to state whether they feel their original concerns have been dealt with, if they have any new concerns, and if they feel the article will meet the FA criteria. This will, hopefully, give us some confidence and a reasonable support base at FAC if the article does meet the requirements. Your comments are greatly appreciated!
Colds7ream (
talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
PRs:
3,
4,
5
GANs:
4
FACs:
1,
2,
3
Question I looked at my oppose back in March - it was based on the fact that there is an abundance of non-web material that was not consulted for this article. Entire books have been written on the station, but none of them had been consulted. The article was based primarily on websites, etc. How has this been rectified? Awadewit ( talk) 04:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
RJHall comments:
Thanks for addressing most of my concerns in the prior review.— RJH ( talk) 16:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I searched for publications about ISS and some results are here. One book dead link was published in 2008. Ruslik_ Zero 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Quick image comments: Hi, I am a tad busy these days, so I cannot check all the images but I note that the following images are still used since my last check and repeat the issues here.
Comments - The prose needs to be improved before the article is renominated. The grammar is generally okay, but the flow of the prose is poor, which makes the article a chore, rather than a pleasure to read. It is not engaging. There is a problem with over-linking and ( Italy, Earth, Moon and Sun, are examples. The writing is often vague and I lost count of the number of occurrences of "various" and "variety". Many time-sensitive phrases also occur such as "8 years and 329 days" and "currently aboard". Other odd sentences and phrases include:
And in the same sentence there is "a wide variety" and "as well as". In fact the whole article would benefit from checking for redundancy, I recall having seen at least one occurrence of "in order to".
James, I hope these comments are useful, please don't take this personally but I think the article would benefit from fresh input—you might have grown too close to it. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
Best wishes. Kablammo ( talk) 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Update:
Just to keep everyone updated:
In the meantime, anyone got any comments on issues not already covered? Colds7ream ( talk) 13:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)