Talk:John Young (astronaut)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Sounds fine. My purpose was not to insist on all of them being removed, just to cut down on how many of them since it seemed to make it harder to read. Looks like that's been done. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 05:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Stylistically well edited.
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)[reply]

-> 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)[reply]

-> 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
seems to follow the citations.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
seems to be in order.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]

Whoops, almost forgot to courtesy ping @Balon Greyjoy: 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 05:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Forbes72: Think I took care of everything; I left some comments above! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry it took a little while to get back to this. Looks great. I'm going to pass. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 05:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]