Talk:John Young (astronaut)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
After doing a quick scan, I think this article seems to be in pretty excellent shape for a GA candidate. I'll take some time to look it over in more detail for the full review. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 00:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing this review, Forbes72! To the best of my knowledge, we have never worked together (sorry if that means I'm forgetting something); always good to have a fresh set of eyes review ones work. I'm planning on putting this article up at WP:FAC once it has reached GA status (assuming there are no issues along the way), so I'm happy for any and all feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- ->
He completed midshipman cruises aboard the USS Missouri, where he roomed with future Apollo 10 crew mate Thomas Stafford,[1]:19 and the USS Newport News
Can you rephrase? I understand what is meant, but the first time I read this it sounded like he roomed with a naval cruiser.
-> Cartersville, Georgia should be a single wikilink to the city, like Orlando, Florida.
->Young applied to become a naval aviator, but was selected to become a gunnery officer
Wikilink naval aviator, gunnery officer.
->was assigned to Fighter Squadron 103 (VF-103)
Wikilink the whole name instead of just the abbreviation.
->F9F Cougar
add wikilink.
->Young's group selected the David Clark G3C pressure suit
wikilink Gemini space suit
-> There's a general preponderance of WP:JARGON, especially initialisms. EVAs, CSM, LM, SPS, ALSEP, ISS, JSC, TPS, and so on. I'm not talking about those like NASA or STS-9 that are the WP:COMMONNAME, but if you only mention the topic once or twice (SPS, ISS), I think it's better for the layman's sake to just stick to the full name when possible. - Think I took care of everything listed above. The only exception is that I left EVA in. I think it's a pretty accepted term, as that is how NASA describes it, and it sounds better than "spacewalk" or "moonwalk." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- ->
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Stylistically well edited.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- looks good.
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- -> Consensus is that find a grave is not a reliable source. You can probably source his resting place somewhere else. Ditto for the four references to IMDb movie casting.
- Surprisingly couldn't find a reliable source that listed where Young was buried. Next time I'm in DC I'll have to visit Arlington and get a photo of his gravesite. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- -> John Posey's resumé is self published, should find a different reference.
- Couldn't find any non-IMDB reference (or Posey bio) for Young casting. I decided to remove the "In Media" section, as it's not like he had a major role in any of these movies (which is a shame). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- -> I've got some concern with the level of closely connected sourcing here. By far the most citations are to his autobiography, and about 25% of the separately listed references are published by his direct employers at NASA. As a citation for facts about his life, that seems fine, but things like NASA naming him "Ambassador for exploration" should have a third party source if you're going to include it.
- I think I took care of what you're looking for. I removed the Ambassador for Exploration as that is a fairly meaningless title (in the scheme of everything else he did). Recording his official awards (both military and NASA) I think it's fine to leave the NASA citations as they are being issued by the US government and not some minor organization. I think his group membership isn't too controversial/promotional, so I also want to just leave the NASA bio citation in. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds fair. If the awards are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page, mentioning them is probably a good idea. My main concern for this typo of bio would be hewing too close to his and his employer's perspectives over a broader opinion, but in this case I think there's pretty broad agreement his career is pretty exceptional. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 05:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think I took care of what you're looking for. I removed the Ambassador for Exploration as that is a fairly meaningless title (in the scheme of everything else he did). Recording his official awards (both military and NASA) I think it's fine to leave the NASA citations as they are being issued by the US government and not some minor organization. I think his group membership isn't too controversial/promotional, so I also want to just leave the NASA bio citation in. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- -> Consensus is that find a grave is not a reliable source. You can probably source his resting place somewhere else. Ditto for the four references to IMDb movie casting.
- C. It contains no original research:
- seems to follow the citations.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- seems to be in order.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- A nice summary of his life and work, with no major holes to speak of.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Seems to be on topic.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- The most relevant point here seems to be the controversy about challenger disaster, which seems done pretty well.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- some minor rephrasing recently, but no major overhauls or disputes.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Most seem to be NASA images, but they all are tagged well.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Some really excellent pictures. Well laid out.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Hold Most of the article looks pretty good, but I think there's two main issues: the article leans a little heavy on WP:JARGON, and there are a few sourcing issues that need to be addressed. There's a lot of good content here though, so I hope rejigging the references isn't a serious problem to overcome. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 05:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Whoops, almost forgot to courtesy ping @Balon Greyjoy: 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 05:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Forbes72: Think I took care of everything; I left some comments above! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Whoops, almost forgot to courtesy ping @Balon Greyjoy: 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 05:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)