Talk:Mir

GA reassessment

Mir

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: DelistThe issues raised have not been addressed Aircorn (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It has hatnotes listed at the top of the page. If it uses unreliable sources, then it does not meet the Good Article criteria. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delist – per nom. – zmbro _(talk) 16:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - nothing happening. Urve (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This has been unnecessarily tag bombed. I am unsure about Encyclopedia Astronautica. It is used on thousands of articles here, but is clearly self published. I would be surprised if there were not better sources as they seem to essentially do what we do and collect other sourced information. As to the page numbers that does need to be addressed. Aircorn (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Transatracurium: as the original nominator Aircorn (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep at current level since this cites some sources that are crowd sourced and the site sites other sources. Rather, those site should be replaced with the relevant refernces on them.

Recent Changes of Article Image

So the article image has been changed a few times since April 24th 2026 and I figured it would be good to get a talk about it. Behold, a gallery:

1: Original article image before April 24th 2026, this has been the status quo for a while

2: New image added by Tarhataz on April 24th 2026 (current image)

3: Changed to this image by ~2026-25793-60 on 28 April 2026

To add to that, other images on wikimedia could be used for this article.

In my opinion the current article image (2) does a poor job at showing the space station's layout, while the original image (1) does that well and worked fine as the main image of the article. I'm not really sure why it was changed to the new image, so Tarhataz, maybe you can provide some reasoning for your change? Tainmere (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

My reasoning for the change was kind of due to the fact the article had the same photo for years. In my opinion (which i can take criticism on), it is a bit low quality, but again most Mir photos are like that. I'm not against it turning back to the original, but the third photo isnt really acceptable my standards due to the Spektr's solar array is cut off. I would much rather have the first or second image over the third. tarhataz (talk)21:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Additionally i was kind of on a spree of fixing Mir articles, which made my decision seem more reasonable. Looking back i don't really know why i changed it. tarhataz (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for replying! For me the original image is the best one, as all six main modules are visible in it. As you are fine with going back to that, I'll change it back to this one.

I think it might be possible to integrate your image somewhere in the article body? Like maybe we could add an image gallery of a view different angles to the structure section to help readers see the station from different angles? But I think for the main article image the angle of the picture is a bit unfortunate, as both the Kristall and Soyuz-TM modules are fully covered while the Priroda Module is mostly covered. Tainmere (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

A gallery would be great, since its hard to see all the modules in one photo, but it is a good photo since theyre all roughly in view. tarhataz (talk)

Article issues

I am still working around trying to fix this article to get it up to the standard. The question is when exactly would the notice be dropped? The article, in my eyes, is the same quality as the ISS article; i see some sections that need grammatical improvement or sourcing, but most of the article is entirely fine.

When or how would the article be assessed for the notice to be removed? tarhataz (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

To add; the last two sections in Mir#Shuttle-Mir seem to duplicate information present in the Mir#Accidents, specifically the Spektr collision. In fact, it looks like it describes what went down even more detailed that it does in the accidents section.

I'll try and rewrite these sections to hopefully make the article less duplicated and subsequently less cluttered. tarhataz (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to add, i've gotten in touch with a creator known as Real Space who has made an excellent animation of the Mir stations assembly, and is currently working on creating a new version that would be added to this article. I've advised of the Wikipedia:Videos page, so it should be up to standard. Expect something similar to the GIF seen in the International Space Station#Assembly section. I've provided some useful sources to them, but the assembly already looks completely accurate. tarhataz (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Said video has now been added, again, I must thank REAL SPACE for taking their time to contribute! tarhataz (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)