Salyut 6 edit
- 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 June 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to go over each of the Salyut station pages in a similar manner to this one, and I'd like to see the general opinion on what I've done here before I move on. I'd also like the page to be given importance and quality ratings, if possible.
Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Couple of problems. Firstly, the date formats and dialects vary through the article. The most common dialect appears to be British English, so that should become the standard (programme not program, -ise not -ize, etc). I don't really like short dates in prose text, so I would suggest using only long date formats in the prose. The short dates look pretty good in tables, though, so I would suggest converting all tables to the ISO short date format. The other problem is to do with units. As it is a scientific article, metric units should be the primary units, however this article seems to use imperial units as the primary units. This needs to be reversed. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, one other thing, most of the times are in UTC, but the "docking operations" section uses MST. This is confusing, and should be brought into line with the rest of the article. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Righto, thanks for the feedback - I'll get to work on fixing those things ASAP! Colds7ream (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I think I've dealt with most of the issues here and in the automated peer review, (with the exception of converting the MST times to UTC, which I'm still working on). How do things look at the moment, quality-wise? Colds7ream (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Generally looks good. Here are a few suggestions based on my read through:
- Units should give both metric and English I think. {{convert}} does this nicely.
- Refs come after punctuation so fix Salyut 6, launched on a Proton 8K82K rocket on September 29, 1977[2], marked the switch from engineering development stations to routine operations, uniting the best elements from all of the stations launched so far. and "the best elements of all ... so far" seems a bit POV and should at least have a reference or perhaps be the quote.
- Avoid or explain jargon, so spell out EVA in Salyut 6 was also equipped with an inward-opening EVA hatch ...
- I do not understand this phrase - typo? two scientific airlocks for equipment of [or?] rubbish ejection
- Some paragraphs need refs - first and third of "Support craft" section for example.
- The whole article is based on just two sources in terms of inline refs, one of which is used just once? This would be a problem for GA (and a huge problem for FA).
- What are the three NASA internet links in the References section there for? They look useful - cite them in the article and format them properly. {{cite web}} is useful.
- I do not assess articles that are in WikiProject(s) I am not a member of - I would ask on the WikiProject talk page(s) for an assessment. If I had to guess I would say B class.
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I've reworded the phrase and moved the reference you pointed out in point two, replaced 'EVA' with 'spacewalk', corrected the scientific airlock description, and shifted one of the references. I'll get started on on putting in the Imperial conversions and then spend some time referencing. Getting better? (Thanks, by the way. :-D) Colds7ream (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- A few more thoughts. It looks better overall,
- I would be OK with "Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) or spacewalk".
- A model article is useful for ideas to follow - Apollo 8 is an FA and may be a model.
- Two paragraphs in last section still need refs.
- Article still seems overly dependent on one source.