Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive7

International Space Station

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because the last time ISS received a thorough review was over ten years ago. Once upon a time, I did a fair amount of copy-edit work with another major contributor to the article and eventually, it made it to FA. Since then, it has fallen from FA, and is rated as B and sometimes even C class in various projects. I would love to see it achieve GA status or even regain FA status once again, but I thought a good look-over might prove beneficial first.

Thanks, Pax Verbum 20:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CactiStaccingCrane (talk), and I gonna review the article right now! 08:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CactiStaccingCrane

The article need some touch-up on accessibility, paticularly on the Pirs airlock & Russian docking port at the structure. There are a lot of pictures in the article, consider put them in galleries.
The components, modules and elements sub-section maybe unnecessary, since each of them have its own article.
There's a ton of copyright violation in the article. In fact, it might be enough to bomb most of the content in some sections. I think you should paraphrase them. [[1]]

Would you be able to point out the "ton of copyright violations?" I ran it through the copyvio tool, and comparing the article to other sites, there is very little, if any, actual copyright violation. -Pax Verbum 06:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that the issues have been fixed. Well done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of ^{[citation needed]} tags.

Using the revision available when you posted this review, I see only two CN tags. Can you show me where there are more? I might be missing something. -Pax Verbum 06:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any ^{[citation needed]} tag anymore, but there are some sections which don't have enough sources, such as the Pressurised modules section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a cleanup tag on a section.

Yes, it does need to be addressed. Thank you. -Pax Verbum 06:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use less quotes from the articles. Gut the contents out and fix it.

Basically, there is a lot that the article need to be fixed. However, these issues are solvable, and when all these glaring problems are fixed, I will review the article more throughly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pax85: Sorry for me coming across a bit combative with your peer review. Don't feel discouraged, I would still help you! It's just that I was having a bad day then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

After taking a quick skim of the article, here are some comments for improvement before a GAN:

There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph that verifies the preceeding information.
"Pressurised modules" section has a clean-up banner message. This needs to be resolved.
Lots of sections, like the lede, scientific research, and assembly, are quite long. Either remove unnecessary information or create level 3 sections
On the other side of the equation, there are lots of sections that are one paragraph long, like in "Pressurised modules". Consider merging these sections, per WP:OVERSECTION

Once the above are addressed, please ping me and I will give more comments. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pax85: to ensure they saw these comments. Are you still interested in working on this article? Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I am closing this PR due to inactivity. Pax85 or another editor may open a new PR when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]