| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed a FAC and I'm trying to get more eyeballs on it.
Thanks, Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Query, are the hints provided by the automated tool tested against the article? If so, is there a link from the hint back to the place in the article where it occurs? It's telling me there's some missing nbsp's in units, but it's tedious to find these manually. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Maury, I noticed your earlier FAC attempt and even though I normally don't participate in PR outside of my own Wikiprojects I decided to give this one a quick shot. I just skimmed your article at the lead and at the end a bit so for now I'll leave just a few quick comments.
- The sentences in the article do not look very organized, and are missing flow. Technical jargon is at times unexplained and MOS at times ignored.
- The lead section does not summarize the content of the article. Also, the discussion of the impact of debris in the three paragraphs in the lead section seems... unorganized. And I would doubt that an object of 1cm in diameter would have the effect of sandblasting!
- "Measurement, growth mitigation and active removal of space debris are major activities within the space industry today." I doubt that... that will be true for space agencies but I'm pretty sure commercial satellite operators don't give a damn. As long as they are not forced to deal with their garbage they won't.
- GEO = Geostationary Earth Orbit
- DLR is developing under ESA contract a service satellite similar to the MDA Space Infrastructure Servicing vehicle for the GEO orbit. For the moment they are hoping that big companies like SES will show interest and purchase such satellites in order to actually build them, AFAIC. Didn't bother looking for sources at the moment, sorry.
- There is fear that active cleanup vehicles in space might be used as anti-satellite weapons. This needs to be addressed.
- There is also fear of collisions between service and dead satellites, which would aggravate the problem of space debris considerably.
- "Dealing with debris" only talks about attempts to remove debris, not about passive (or even active?) protection mechanisms like improved shielding. This is probably intended but needs to be clarified.
- There are plans to avoid the problem of space debris for other celestial bodies from the outset. Is this addressed?
- Are plans for international regulations concerning space debris discussed? E.g. that satellite operators should be made responsible to clean up their own mess?
From this quick skim it looks like there are many holes to be patched in this article. I may do a little more review some other day, but no promise here. Nageh (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Huh, was I supposed to comment on this PR? It was closed by a bot right the next day after it was opened. Nageh (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)