Talk:Progress M1-5

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Progress M1-5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article deserves GA status. It is well written, neutral, stable and well referenced (perhaps even over-referenced) with in-line citations, most of which are even archived for backup. The article covers not only Progress M1-5 mission, but also other relevant topics of the Russian Space Program history. There were some problems with the references, style and coverage of some areas, but the nearly 3-fold expansion of the text during the review has addressed them all. The review comments are listed below.

P.S. I was surprised to see that the famous decay of another station, Salyut 7, is not covered yet on WP. Materialscientist (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

General impression is Ok, a bit too little material. As usual, I tweak what I don't like in the text (please check that I didn't mess up something) and express what I'm not happy about: A comment is needed on why so much efforts were spent on Mir's deorbit? Russians planned to keep it, thus it was on a stable orbit, wasn't it? Thus no unpredictable reentry concerns (?) As stated at http://planet4589.org/jcm/jmcdowell.html refs. 2 and 20 are a personal web site; same as http://space.kursknet.ru (refs. 12,13). No slight towards their authors, they are diligently compiling information, but often without mentioning where from, and I would seek more official refs as a backup (at least covering for the site stability). Ref. 3 says nothing about roskomos; why is it in the lead? To continue, the article is on a fundamental space program, but most refs are from 3rd-party news sites (republishing offisial state agencies). Can we add something more official (e.g. Soviet, NASA sources, google books) ? "The docking port had previously been occupied by Progress M-43" - a brief explanation is expected what he was doing there (if only as supply for Soyuz crew, still, that explanation is too late in the article). Materialscientist (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Okay. Thanks for the review, I am trying to address all the points that you have raised. The Russian space agency was called "Rosaviakosmos" at the time, not "Roskosmos" I have added an entirely new section ("Background") to try and deal with the lack of information on why it was deorbited. I have reworded the two terms that you requested clarification on. With regards to the two websites that you listed as being personal websites: Jonathan McDowell (planet4589.org) has a number of scientific publications in the field of astrophysics, which I feel satisfy the requirements for self-published material. That said, much of the information in those sources can probably be found elsewhere, so if I can do so, I will try to supplement them with other sources. I am currently in the process of replacing or supplementing all references to space.kursknet.ru The reference in the lead does mention RKA, but I agree that it is not the best reference for the matter, so I have replaced it I have added some references to US government sources. Unfortunately, there are no RKA references available as their archives only go back as far as February 2008 (I managed to get back as far as 2004 using archive.org, but I can't find anything before that). I might be able to get something from the RKK Energia website, so I'll look into that. I don't know of any books on the subject, but I have been able to provide a couple of references to a book on the Soviet space programme in general, for some of the background information. I have clarified the role of Progress M-34. I have lengthened the article somewhat (it is now over 16,000 bytes larger than when you reviewed it). I am going to make a few more changes later. --GW… 10:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I think I have addressed all of your concerns. Please could you take a look, and see if there is anything else that I can do to improve this article, or whether it can be passed. Thanks. --GW… Yes. Some more: A general rule is the lead should contain no references; its content should be expanded in the body and this is where the refences go. Some refs are certainly unnecessary in the lead of this article. "with the first commercial mission, Soyuz TM-30, being flown in later that year" The Soyuz TM-30 page does not read like commercial mission at all. I guess a note on "commercial" is due here. Materialscientist (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Done. Anything else? --GW… 09:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Don't get me wrong, I am very pleased with the development, much material and refs were added in no time, but. Please try to improve the reference support. Most come from commercial sites, and almost half of references originate from a single commercial provider space.com (imagine, e.g., their site shuts down; or they add an extra chunk in their filenames and thus all refs become unavailable at once). I would go not for the number of references, but for number of independent, and more reliable sources. Google books is one possibility (quick search for progress M1-5 and Mir deorbiting 1, 2, 3, 4 .. truncated; I'm sure there is more). Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I've added more references, including some NASA websites and books. I have also archived all references to ensure they will still be available in the event of the originals becoming unavailable. Do you feel that enough have been added, or should I look for more? --GW… 00:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I've now managed to dig up some references from Rosaviakosmos. I've also added some more ESA ones. Please can you take a look and tell me what else is needed. --GW… 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I'd like to suggest that Deorbit of Mir be merged into this article, as it contains no content that this article (which is much more extensive and better written) does not. Colds7ream (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Progress M1-5 is too long to accomodate details of Mir deorbit. The topic deserves a separate coverage. Twilightchill t 16:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's long because it has all of the details of the deorbit already. A redirect would be fine. Colds7ream (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The background and deorbit sections there currently have WP:TOPIC problems. Twilightchill t 19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They give details on the spacecraft's mission, and the article passed a GAN with those sections included. I support merging the Mir deorbit article into this one, unless sufficient content can be found to expand it without duplication. --GW… 19:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that two articles should be merged here, because of the obvious overlap. But I think Deorbit of Mir is a better name for the Progress M1-5 article. Currently, the article Progress M1-5 is primarily about the deorbiting of Mir, and not about the spacecraft itself, so in this sense the title "Progress M1-5" fails WP:COMMONNAME. So I would support a merge into Progress M1-5 (which is clearly the superior article), and then a move to another article title, such as Deorbit of Mir, or Mir deorbit and re-entry, or Mir reentry (which seems to be the most common, according to Google searches). Mlm42 (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mlm, do you really want to restart that debate? --GW… 00:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm always up for some rational level-headed discussion, yes. Mlm42 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no difference between the proposal discussed at HSF a few weeks ago, and the one you're proposing here now. Now perhaps I just don't like something which looks like the thin end of a wedge, but given the previous discussion I would oppose in the strongest possible way any proposal which did not leave an article of some kind here. As a compromise, I might accept merging the two articles, moving them elsewhere whilst retaining GA status, and then creating a new one here to cover just the Progress spacecraft, however I am not sure that any move could be achieved whilst retaining GA status, since this article is currently centred around the mission of the Progress spacecraft. --GW… 00:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As Twilightchill pointed out, the article currently has WP:TOPIC problems, since it is not primarily about the spacecraft; the article contains sections which are primarily about Mir's reentry, with a lot of detail. The analogy with STS-51-L and Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is appropriate here. A move to an article named after the reentry (such as Mir's reentry), and then creating a spacecraft article, seems like reasonable compromise. It's not clear how readers will benefit from have two separate articles, but you seem keen on having an article for every individual spacecraft, with no exceptions. I'm not sure what happens to GA status in the event of a page move.. maybe the reworked article could go through a GA review to keep its status. Mlm42 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And the thing is that when we are describing the deorbit, the main subject is Mir, not Progress. I think Progress would benefit from a brief outline of deorbit with a link to main Deorbit article. Twilightchill t 10:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, now pretty much the entire contents of this article have been copied over to Deorbit of Mir, I'm not entirely sure what to do with these articles... Colds7ream (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be to retain the current configuration, or to redirect deorbit of Mir here. This is the configuration that achieved GA status, and the other article is some way from that quality. --GW… 19:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)