Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Shuttle main engine/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
A long-time Wikipedia lurker, I've registered especially because I want to work to bring this article on one of the finest pieces of human engineering to GA-class, and maybe FA-class. I am looking for the following:
1) Since I've never worked on an article before with the goal of making it a good article, I'm looking for advice on format, referencing, layout, etc. 2) I'm also looking for expert advice on which information I should expand, which new sections I should add and what additional content would be appropriate.
Thanks everybody, --SinJuiceMonkey (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
sdsds comments: The article coverage should be expanded to include information on when and where the engines were manufactured, how many have been manufactured, and how they are conveyed from the place of manufacture (presumably canoga park?) to the place of use (ksc). It should cover how the engine was designed, i.e. the goals for the design and what organization performed the design work (nasa or rocketdyne?) It should cover testing of the engines (at stennis?). It should indicate the disposition of engines no longer active in the shuttle program (i.e. retired engines on display anywhere?) Procurement cost and timeline issues also deserve coverage: was the program placed via competitive bid or was it a sole-source contract? When was the contract awarded? What did it cost to establish production? What is the per-unit price for additional production? Good luck with it!
- I'd agree with sdsds: even a purely technical subject should have some human history behind it. Who were the people who set the strategy, who designed it, defended their ideas etc. East of Borschov 05:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments from Niagara
General
- I agree with the above comments—something like the SSME didn't just magically come into existence. There is probably alot of information out there about how it was developed.
- For consistenency, measurements should all be converted from metric to imperial or from imperial to metric.
- Consider using {{Convert}} for measurement conversions. It allows for automatic formatting of and linking of units.
- Formatting the citations is easier if a citation template is used.
- More inline citations are needed. Generally, every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a citation.
- The first paragraph in an article should be a concise summary of it, per WP:LEAD.
- I think that the "Oxidizer system" section through the "Controller" section should be made sub-sections of larger section (maybe "Operational systems"). I'd also include a paragraph that would mention all the systems (how the engine operates and what each system contributes to its operation).
- I'd try to get ride of the "Specifications" section by moving some specs into the infobox and working some into the prose. Lists like that usually aren't retained in a GA or FA.
Introduction
- The "Introduction" section should be renamed ("Background" maybe) as the first paragraph in the article is considered the intro.
- "...could be drained in 75 seconds - or 25 seconds for the sum of the three used for the space shuttle launch."
- Tweaked; needs an emdash and a citation: "...could be drained in 75 seconds—or 25 seconds if three are used, as done in a space shuttle launch."
Combustion chamber and nozzle
- "...an unusually large expansion ratio (about 77) for the chamber pressure."
- Write out the ratio (either 77:1 or 77-to-1), also explain what an "expansion ratio" is and why 77:1 is unusual.
Interesting article, it could be possible to get it to FA, but its needs work first. It's a pity that I'll probably will never see one of these in action. If these comments useful, consider reviewing an article in the backlog, which is how I found yours. Niagara Don't give up the ship 23:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Introduction
- Third para of the introduction needs work, I am an engineer and if I stumble over the intro then I suggest that it needs a rethink. Not sure what to suggest though... Perhaps a very simple explanation as suits an introduction. Keep it very simple this early in the article. AWHS (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
added sdsds comment: SSMEs were not all created equal. SSME block 2 had different turbopumps to improve performance, which was motivated by the requirement to fly shuttle missions to orbital inclinations compatible with the Russian space program. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-16925487/liquid-launch-block-1.html