Talk:Progress M1-5/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)