Wikipedia:Peer review/Space debris/archive1

Space debris[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently completed a re-write of the article on space debris. I'd like to move it to FA, as I think this is a topic of some interest to a wide audience, yet it remains relatively unknown outside certain circles.

Thanks, Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting article and while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into this, it needs a fair amount more work before it would stand a chance of passing FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Biggest problem I can see is that the article needs more references, for example the first paragraph of the Micrometeorite shielding section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

With the exception of the paragraph mentioned, can you be specific about what you believe needs a cite? I'd prefer to avoid an endless rush in the FA (which is likely unavoidable anyway)

My basic position is that a ref at the end of a paragraph covers the whole paragraph (or back to the previous ref). If there is a six sentence paragraph with a ref for sentence two and no refs for the last four sentences, then those four sentences need a ref (even if it the same ref as for sentence 2). For the rest please see what I wrote above. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current refs 73 and 84 (as two examples) are just titles with linksm but internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Th two refs fixed. NASA server is down so the date on the second one will have to wait.

Huh? Ref 73 is still just "73. ^ Space weather" These were also just examples, there are several other refs that are incomplete - like 90, 91, 96 (not a complete list, please look at the refs and see where they are missing things). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEAD says that section headers should not repeat all or part of the title of the article if at all possible, so things like "Sources of debris" should just be "Sources" and "Characterizing debris" could just be "Characterization", as two examples

I'm not sure I agree that this is applicable in this case. The article is long and if you go to places like Google these appear directly. I am going to err on the side of readability in this case

OK, you can fix it now, or you may have to fix it at FAC - your choice. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also avoid vague time references like "current" or "the past ten years" - use the actual dates ("as of 2009" instead of currently or now)

Cannot find an example of this. A statement containing the "past 30 years" appears, but that's as a direct quote.

Searched "current" and found three examples 1) However, studies have suggested that even the current ITU requirements are not enough to have a major effect on collision frequency.[42] and 2) The U.S. Strategic Command maintains a catalogue currently containing about 19,000 objects, in part to prevent misinterpretation as hostile missiles. and 3) In any event, the cost of launching any of these solutions is about the same as launching any spacecraft. Johnson has stated that none of the existing solutions are currently cost effective.[28] Missed that the past 30 years was in a direct quote, but the phrase introducing it uses "recent" (In a recent historical overview, Kessler summed up the situation bluntly:) where giving the year of the study (2009) would be clearer. A search on "recent" found 14 matches, several of which could use years or more specific dates. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the language seems POV or at least unencyclopedic - for example in the lead the use of "Our" seems unencyclopedic in " Our ability to find objects in low earth orbit (LEO) falls off quickly below 10 cm in size, while for higher orbits..." while invaluable in Although Whipple's work pre-dated the space race, it proved invaluable when space exploration started only a few years later. seems POV (if it is a quote from a reliable source, then it would be OK).

Fixed.

I think of "debris" as a singular word that refers to a collection of objects (like an army is singular but made of many soldiers). The problem is that the article is written as if it were a plural word (debris ... are) Space debris, also known as orbital debris, space junk and space waste, are the objects in orbit around Earth created by humans that no longer serve any useful purpose.

I do not understand this one. To me, "space waste" is, as you note, a "singular word that refers to a collection of objects", in the same way that "garbage" can refer to a single item or a collection of items. Am I missing the point here? Wait, I got it, I removed a "the" from the first sentence, I think that cleans it up.

If the normal usage for space debris is "space debris" are, that is OK, but I think that the more normal usage is "debris is" (a Google search on "debris is" gets about 1,180,000 hits, while "debris are" gets "180,000" hits - seems to be OK, just less common). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but not all the headers seem to be in there. The article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD

I believe the LEAD follows LEAD. In particular, I believe it covers all salient bullet points of the issue. Can you be more specific as to what items in the LEAD are not fleshed out in the body? Got it: RORSAT section has been added to the main body.

The language is generally good, but could use a copyedit before going to FAC.

Copyedit is next on the list. I will invite a wikifaery I know.

Arthur C. Clarke wrote A Fall of Moondust (not Asimov). Not sure if the story is really that relevant to this article either.

I think the Fall mention is important in-context. This was a matter of some concern at the time, to the point where it became a book. Think about the scientific issues of the modern era that have done the same and then ask if you think that's worth mentioning.

As I wrote above, Asimov did NOT write this novel (Clarke did). This needs to be fixed. Keeping the novel in or not is your call. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:MOS units should be given in both metric and English units for most articles (is there a space styke guidleine that metric only is OK?). If English units are needed,, the {{convert}} template is very useful.

I will convert.

Abbreviations should be spelled out before first use
The article has some short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be either combined with others or perhaps expanded where possible.

Can you be specific on the short sentences? That seems like something I can knock off quickly.

They are short paragraphs (not sentences). Look for paragraphs that are only one or two sentences long and fix those. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 6 October 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 _><>°^° 03:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the paragraph mentioned, can you be specific about what you believe needs a cite? I'd prefer to avoid an endless rush in the FA (which is likely unavoidable anyway)

Th two refs fixed. NASA server is down so the date on the second one will have to wait.

I'm not sure I agree that this is applicable in this case. The article is long and if you go to places like Google these appear directly. I am going to err on the side of readability in this case.

Cannot find an example of this. A statement containing the "past 30 years" appears, but that's as a direct quote.

Fixed.

I do not understand this one. To me, "space waste" is, as you note, a "singular word that refers to a collection of objects", in the same way that "garbage" can refer to a single item or a collection of items. Am I missing the point here? Wait, I got it, I removed a "the" from the first sentence, I think that cleans it up.

I believe the LEAD follows LEAD. In particular, I believe it covers all salient bullet points of the issue. Can you be more specific as to what items in the LEAD are not fleshed out in the body? Got it: RORSAT section has been added to the main body.

Copyedit is next on the list. I will invite a wikifaery I know.

I think the Fall mention is important in-context. This was a matter of some concern at the time, to the point where it became a book. Think about the scientific issues of the modern era that have done the same and then ask if you think that's worth mentioning.

I will convert.

Can you be specific on the short sentences? That seems like something I can knock off quickly.

Sorry to dump this right back to you, but I'm also working on another major re-write so I'm trying to batch things up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Smackbot got some of them. Is there one that does unit conversions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple or questions/comments on Talk:Space_debris that have not yet been responded to. Can you look at them Maury? Matthew C. Clarke 01:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your replies into my comments above and replied to most of them (unless you said they were already fixed). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I got most of them. A bot did the units conversions and links. Serveral of the refs have no author information, like the NASA ones, so I left them alone. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]