Wikipedia:Peer review/Ares I/archive1

Ares I

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to move it towards GA status. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,
— Ω (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article -seems to have all the facts and refs pretty much there, but I think if it is going to get to GA it will need some MOS and organizational cleanup. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Saturn V is a former featured article and Shuttle-Mir Program is a FA - these might be useful models
The lead does not really meet WP:LEAD. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, and as a summary nothing important should be in the lead only - it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the CLV part and being named for Ares are only in the lead (as examples).
My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but many of the sections do not seem to be in the lead - for example the Schedule, which makes it clear this will not launch with a human until at least 2014 is not in the lead, but should be.
Per WP:MOS#Images, images should not sandwich text, but this is done in the lead. Images should also be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower
Article is generally nicely referenced but the first paragraph in "Role in Constellation program" has no refs and needs at least one. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
I am not familiar with spaceref.com - is this a reliable source??
In my opinion it is, and it's used for references throughout articles dealing with spaceflight. Someone needs to actually begin a Spaceref.com page and add some references to it, is all.
— Ω (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is used in other recent space FAs then it should be OK - reliability means more that they identify their sources and have editorial control than that they have an article here. For example, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but has its own article - see WP:RS Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Organizationally, I think it would make more sense to start by giving some background on the end of the Shuttle program and the need for a new launch vehicle (rocket). Perhaps giving some of the criticisms of the one size fits all approach of the shuttle would also be useful here, as they lead to the development of the different Ares vehicles (I and V). I would then give the history as Development. Then I owuld talk about the Design and then the planned schedule. To me it makes more sense to present the information in a more chronological order.
I adjusted the article's organization yesterday, more or less in order to start addressing this point. I'll probably add some more info to the Development section in general, soon.
— Ω (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Captions could be clearer - for example, for File:SDLV rockets.jpg I would give the date of the figure and identify it as an early design to make it clearer that the current design is different
Done. Colds7ream (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Aiaa2.jpg also needs a caption that makes it clear this is an artist's impression. The source is listed as "Douglas Yazell, Past Chair, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Houston Section, douglas.yazell@honeywell.com" and the author is listed as "user:aaaf-wiki" (on COmmons) but the license is a NASA license. These do not agree and this will be a problem at WP:FAC (which I can see this getting to eventually) and might be a problem at WP:GAN
I have resolved the author & source issues, and given the image a longer caption. Colds7ream (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid words like current or currently in the article as things can change - instead use phrases like "as of 2009" or "since YEAR"
It looks like I took care of all of these.
— Ω (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is still one (I just seached for the word current using my web browser): The upper stage of Ares I is to be built at the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility, which is where the Space Shuttle's External Tank is currently constructed, and the former construction site of the Saturn V's first stage, the S-IC. [17][18] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better - keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]