Talk:Robert J. Cenker

DYK results

This article's DYK appearance garnered 9,493 pageviews, [1] enough to have it listed in the permanent DYK Statistics Archive. RobP (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Article update status

I am in the process of making a significant update to this article, and am doing that in my user space. If you have any suggested info to add, please do not make changes in the article itself; instead suggest them here so that I may incorporate them when I publish the update. Thanks! RobP (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Still working it... almost ready to go! RobP (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: I just replaced the existing material with the expanded article. I removed classification of stub as well. RobP (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Article classification status

I modified the WikiProject templates to remove the start class designation. Concerning the general classification rules here, it looks like a B to me. I updated the Spaceflight classification accordingly and left a notice on that site as follows:

• I am going to reclassify (this article) as a B which seems to fit well with its current state. If anyone disagrees, please let me know why. Thanks! RobP (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Challenger mission material. Undue weight?

The Undue weight flag should not be used as that flag has nothing to do with a disagreement on emphasis such as this. That issue can be argued over on Talk without such a blemish on the page! RobP (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The template is not a blemish, it is there to encourage discussion, once consensus has been reached among editors, it can be removed.--RadioFan (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well it not being a blemish is a matter of opinion. It would be the first thing folks read and it certainly has a bad connotation. If it was warranted, I would say so be it. However, after reading the UNDUE page again to be sure, I do not think this is the kind of "controversy" it is meant to flag. We are not talking about minority viewpoints or mentioning Flat Earth nonsense on a page about the Earth. This is just a matter of opinion on emphasis of the mission following to this one and how often any mention should be included. If that sort of thing were a valid reason for its use - just the degree something should be stressed or not - that banner would be on practically every article. RobP (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Currently Challenger is mentioned 8 times in the article, 4 of those make the point that Cenker lone flight on STS-61-C preceded STS-51-L. Any thoughts on trimming this? I also wonder if the details on STS-61-C which don't involve Cenker could be trimmed and/or moved to the mission article where appropriate.

The Challenger disaster is certainly worth mentioning in the context that it triggered Cenker's place as the last civilian payload specialist for several years, but that point need only be made once.

I'm eager to hear other perspectives.--RadioFan (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Eight times seems like a lot... but one is in the lede which is a summary of the article, and two are in Notes (which many do not even read). So there are really 5 in the main article... and two are in a single sentence mentioning the fatalities. As to the meat of the issue: Before my re-write, (I expanded this article from what was a stub with no citations) the entire article actually was in danger of being deleted. There was not enough content to give it a reason to exist on Wikipedia. One editor called it "just a CV" and asked for a deletion. A vote to delete could have happened at any time. So I wrote this from the viewpoint of a historical perspective: that what made this a notable mission WAS in fact what happened immediately after and how that affected things. Some have loved the approach I took. I guess others not so much. We shall see what happens. RobP (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert J. Cenker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RadioFan (talk · contribs) 19:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

There are still a few to many issues in this article for it to rise to GA status. Readers aren't left wanting but, in its current form, doesn't approach the quality of a professional encyclopedia.

The article should focus on Cenker but there is a lot of material about that one mission he flew. While this is certainly a part of his story, this biography should focus on the aspects of the mission he was involved in (such as the RCA satellite deployment) and not duplicate the mission article.

The article is a bit repetitive as well. While the fact that Cenker's lone mission was the one immediately before the Challenger disaster is part of the story, especially since civilians like Cenker were not included in the the next dozen crews, that fact needs to be mentioned only once, and in that context. The current article mentions that STS-51-L was the next to launch after STS-61-C 4 times. --RadioFan (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review...

• Regarding your comment "in its current form, (it) doesn't approach the quality of a professional encyclopedia." is subjective. On what specific basis? What could make it so?
• On the specific point you made about repetition, the only repetitive part I can find (besides the lede which is a summary) is the sentence "Cenker and Magilton trained with career astronauts as well as other Payload and Mission Specialists, including those scheduled for the next scheduled flight, that of the ill-fated Challenger mission..." before the main part discussing Challenger and the ramifications. That sentence was only to make the point about the co-training (and allowing me to use the photo cited) in the primary section, Spaceflight experience. (That photo is the only proof I could find of the training pairing.) Why is that repetitive? Or are there other items?
• Regarding your comment "The article should focus on Cenker but there is a lot of material about that one mission he flew..." Not sure what the point is. Is there a typo in your comment? If you are asking for more specifics on the mission or Bob's role in it, I could find none documented. RobP (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Other comments

RadioFan, since this is your first GA review, you may not be aware that GA reviews should be directly based on the GA criteria. It doesn't seem as though you have examined the article in that light, nor noted any issues in that regard. You'll want to review the GA nomination instructions, and there are pointers there to useful guides on reviewing potential GAs.

For example, your first comment is that the article doesn't approach the quality of a professional encyclopedia. But that isn't part of the GA criteria. Featured Articles are supposed to have prose that rises to that level. Good Articles are supposed to be "clear and concise" and a number of other things, but not professional level. (You should point out things like grammatical errors or typos as part of your review.) There are others of the "well-written" criteria that you haven't covered, including the Wikipedia Manual of Style section on article leads. For an article of this size, one or two paragraphs are indicated, and no significant fact should be in the lead that isn't in the body of the article (there are several).

RobP, there are a huge number of inline source citations in the lead, including a block of five at the end. In general, unless you have a quote or are giving a fact that is likely to be challenged or controversial, these citations should be given in the body of the article where the information is covered in typically greater depth. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the feedback. I tried to take care of the citations issues as well as making some body text changes to ensure everything in the lead reflects what is elsewhere. Please check to see if I missed anything. I also want to point out that RadioFan has made edits to the article while engaged in the GA. I thought this was not to be done by a GA reviewer. Am I wrong? Some edits were constructive, but one was very problematic and I had to revert it. The removed text was the item in the article reflected in the approved DYK hook. The text was removed for the stated reason that it was wrong, but it was not, as I said in my unanswered rebuttal. (The veracity of the hook as reflected in the specified reference had also been verified by the DYK reviewer who approved the DYK.) RadioFan also made an odd suggestion on the DYK Approval page saying that the hook should be changed to point at a different article instead of the Cenker one (if I understood the comment correctly). An unnecessary comment about the GA review having issues was also included, and I fear this might impact the DYK completion. Please see [2] and let me know if the DYK is now in jeopardy. Thanks! RobP (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Approaching the quality of a professional encyclopedia comes from the WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Spaceflight assessment guides and is common to most projects. These guides also require that the article has no obvious problems. I am concerned that heavy focus on events only tangentially related to the subject of the article is a problem here, to the point that it could confuse readers.

The single mission that Cenker flew is relevant and should be covered but with a focus on Cenker's contributions. 1/3rd of the content in the experience section generically covers the mission. This is already detailed in STS-61-C and STS-51-L and adds little to this biographical article. Similarly, 1/3rd of the lead section covers a mission Cenker was not a part of.

That STS-51-L Challenger mission is worthy of a single mention, in that it made him the last civilian on an STS crew for nearly 4 years and time training with that crew. However, the article references Challenger, which Cenker never flew on, more than the orbiter he did fly on (Columbia). This will leave some readers with the wrong impression.

The Early life and education, Pre-spaceflight career and Post-spaceflight sections are well written and cited and read very well. Some copyediting is still needed in the 4th, 5th & 8th paragraphs in Spaceflight experience section to bring the focus back on Cenker and his involvement and less generically on the missions. Edits I began making to return the focus to the subject of the article were reverted by the nominator with concerns that the DYK nomination might be endangered. I've not made edits since and brought this discussion to the article's talk page as well as sharing my thoughts on both the GA and DYK noms.

Three contributors to the Wikipedia spaceflight project have assessed the article as B. Greater focus on the subject of the article can raise it to GA. I've also requested reviews from the Biography and Spaceflight projects to hopefully get some additional editor's eyes on this article. . RadioFan (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Stating that "Three contributors to the Wikipedia spaceflight project have assessed the article as B" as justification it does not deserve a GA rating is just a total misrepresenting of the facts here: The first contributor was me stating that I changed it from Start to a B after I published the re-write. Clearly if I could I would have given it a GA if I was allowed to. The second was someone from the project verifying that my (probably out-of-turn) upgrade to a B was acceptable (at my request). They were not asked if it should go through a GA review, just if my upgrade was OK. The third was RadioFan. Except for RadioFan, no one else was stating it didn't deserve a GA. And as for the point RadioFan will not let go of, that I used the "End of Innocence" theme as central to the historic nature of the mission in retrospect... well again, we just disagree that this was inappropriate. I have had very positive feedback in general. I think readers are smarter than they are being given credit for, and will not be not be "confused" by the current content. RobP (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

RadioFan, I see you have yet to refer to the GA criteria specifically and are pointing at other sources rather than said criteria. Specific guidelines at WikiProjects are generally not relevant here at GA, and should not override GA's specifications. Mind you, it seems to me that your comments about the article's emphasis would indicate issues with the "Broadness" criteria, but have you even checked to see? If you aren't interested in reviewing by GA's own rules, you should consider withdrawing from this review and eschewing further GA reviews. Another reviewer can eventually be found who can do a complete GA review to the long-established criteria. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If consensus is that my concerns do not impact the quality of this article, then I'll of course respect that consensus. But so far only the nominator and I have weighed in on those concerns. BlueMoonset do you have any thoughts? Are they relevant to GA? --RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@RadioFan and Rp2006: Would you guys like me to do a GA review for this as a second opinion? I can work on that next week perhaps. Kees08 (Talk) 02:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kees08: I'm fine with that. RobP (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Starting with the first GA criteria, the prose in this article is not "clear and concise". I see disjointed sentences, and other problems. I'll do some editing in order to bring it up to B status. At present, though, it does not merit GA. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Disjointed sentences? Sounds subjective, but I am not even sure what that means. Please specify. RobP (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I am going to copy edit the article, feel free to revert or dispute my edits. Kees08 (Talk) 02:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Kees08: What has to be done to push this along? RobP (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I just need to make time for it. I have a lot going on IRL right now, so it has been tough. I think it needs a thorough copy edit, but other than that it would probably be good. Maybe submit a request to the guild of copy editors? I will try to copy edit it in the meantime, but as you can see my progress thus far has been pretty slow. Kees08 (Talk) 07:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Kees08, it has been nearly two months. Do you plan to review this nomination or not. If not, the best thing at this point would be to put this back into the pool of nominations awaiting reviewers, with no loss of seniority, in the hopes of finding someone else to conduct a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kees08 and BlueMoonset: Any update on this? RobP (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

RobP, this was put back into the pool of nominations awaiting reviewers without loss of seniority shortly after I posted my comment (and not done so by me); a new reviewer has yet to select the article. I'm going to archive this page so no one tries to continue the review here, since it's no longer active. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert J. Cenker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170731004724/https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/events/events-calendar/2017/march/meet-astronaut-bob-cenker to https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/events/events-calendar/2017/march/meet-astronaut-bob-cenker

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert J. Cenker/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 17:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Commencing GA review.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is clear and easily understood. Follows MOS guidelines.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Article is thoroughly referenced does not contain copyright violations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Comprehensive and not too detailed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are correctly licensed and are used appropriately.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Congratulations! This article passes. Codyorb (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Review reopened

Per a discussion at Codyorb's talk page, this review is being reopened, and further work will include contributions from Mike Christie, who has agreed to give a second opinion on the state of the article, given that Codyorb is new at reviewing, and some issues came to light. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-review by Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I screw anything up.

• What makes the following websites reliable sources? I'm not saying they're not reliable, just that I can't find evidence of their reliability from their websites.
  • spacefacts.de Redundant, so I removed it.
  • classmates.com (a discussion on WP:RSN seems to say it is not) I think this falls in the category of not using sources like this (or FaceBook) unless it is for non-controversial bio facts. As this was just for Cenker's High School info, I thought it was OK here.

    The discussion I linked to seems pretty unambiguously against it, and specifically talks about using this sort of source for high school information. I think it should be removed. We can get another opinion if you really feel this is worth keeping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you get another opinion? There is no other source I could find, and I'd like to keep it if possible as that section is thin to begin with. RobP (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• • americaspace.com An on-line space news source with editorial oversight. Looks good to me.
  • astronautix.com This was pre-internet and unsurprisingly, I could find no better reference for the RCA to GE transformation at the time I wrote this. But I just found this. What do you think of it as a substitute?

    Looks like a good source to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Replaced the reference. RobP (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• • jamesoberg.com This is from James Oberg, who is a space journalist and Wikipedia notable individual, so I think it is good.

• • collectstpace.com Just a local report on one of Cenker's many public appearances. I think it is OK in context, especially as it provided photos for confirmation, but I will have no heartburn if you feel like removing it.

    I found this, which is the original press release; that will work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I replaced the reference. RobP (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think the lead could be made a bit longer; it's very thin at the moment.

Expanded it a bit.

• spacecraft bus manager: can we get a link for bus? I assume it's bus (computing), but wasn't sure enough to add it without checking.

Bus references to a model type. There is a Wiki page so I added a link!

• Cenker and Magilton trained with career astronauts as well as other Payload and Mission Specialists, including those scheduled for the next scheduled flight, that of the Challenger mission, STS-51-L. This could be clearer. Cenker and Magilton were competing with each other at this point, right? Only one would be selected? And was it definite that they were training for the Columbia mission, or could they have been selected for a later mission? Were others in their training group in competition with them for the Payload Specialist positions for Columbia, or were the others only training for later flights? I can tell some of this from later in the article, but it should be clear at this point.

Changed to: "...Bob Cenker, and his co-worker Gerard Magilton, were selected to train as Payload Specialists so that one of the pair could accompany Satcom Ku-1 into space." Better? Pre-Challenger disaster mindset, it is possible that if RCA launched another spacecraft on a mission, Magilton (or Bob) would have flown again as they would have been trained and ready. But this is speculation without any reference I could find, so I did not mention it.

• Why tell the story of the hazardous launch attempts entirely in quotes? Quotes are for illustration; I don't see any reason why we couldn't paraphrase most or all of these quotes.

I originally had tried to paraphrase, and other editors complained it was not clear... so I gave up an quoted the expert on this complex issue. Please give it a go if you really think this is a problem.

• The satellite is referred to as "Satcom Ku-1" at one point, and "Satcom K-1" at another point; I assume one is a typo.

Typo. Fixed.

• reached its geostationary “slot”: can we get a link or explanation for "slot"? I assume the word is used because "orbit" sounds odd for a geostationary satellite, but a reader who doesn't know what geostationary means isn't going to know that. A link for "geostationary" would probably be good too.

Slot is shorthand in the industry for "designated geostationary orbital position". I have replaced the shorthand, and added a link.

• Is "Shuttle" capitalized or not? It seems to be inconsistent -- "for the Shuttle Program", and in the next sentence "the shuttle fleet".

Per Wiki article, it should be "Space Shuttle" or "Shuttle". I made corrections.

• Are all the professional societies worth mentioning? Being a registered PE in Jersey seems a minor thing for an encyclopedia to mention; being a life member of the Penn State Alumni Association also seems pretty cuttable.

Don't know the rules on that, so I put everything relevant I could find. If you feel like deleting some, go for it.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a couple of notes on the sources above. All the other points are fixed, so once those two issues are addressed I'll promote the article to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

OK. I think I got everything. Yes? RobP (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There's just the question of whether we can use classmates.com or not. I'll post for a second opinion in a moment.

Second opinion requested

Can Classmates.com be used to source which high school someone went to? There's a discussion in the RSN archives that seems to argue that it is not acceptable at all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I read through the RS discussion on classmates and came to the conclusion that it is indeed not a RS, so I will remove it now. RobP (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

OK -- then I'll go ahead and promote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance with this matter and helping to improve the article. RobP (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)