Talk:Bonnie J. Dunbar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 05:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks an interesting article submitted by Hawkeye7, whose work I have always found to be of a very high standard. I look forward to undertaking a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 78% of authorship is by Hawkeye7. It is currently assessed variously as a B and C class article.

The text is clear and concise.
The article is of reasonable length, with 3,801 words of readable prose.
The lead is of appropriate length at 250 words.
Text seems to be neutral.
There is no evidence of edit wars.
All accessible sources seem live.
The images seem appropriate and relevant.

Review

Add wikilink to Outlook, Washington
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much information is repeated from Dunbar's biography on the NASA website, as noted in the article. For example, the statements "Her technical assignments included assisting in the verification of Shuttle flight software at the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory (SAIL), serving as a member of the Flight Crew Equipment Control Board, participation as a member of the Astronaut Office Science Support Group, and supporting operational development of the remote manipulator system (RMS)." and "A payload crew of four operated around-the-clock for 13 days performing experiments in scientific disciplines such as protein crystal growth, electronic and infrared detector crystal growth, surface tension physics, zeolite crystal growth, and human physiology" are taken directly from the work.
This was all taken from the NASA site. The original article before expansion was just a copy of it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a very high likelihood (81.6%) of copyright violation with her biography at the Texas A&M University Aerospace Human Systems Laboratory [[1]], which seems to also rely on the NASA biography. Much of this is close phrasing that can be avoided.
It too was copied from the NASA site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also close phrasing with her biography on History Link [2], For example, they both use the exact phrase "took a job as an office manager" and the phrase "Dunbar married Ronald M. Sega, an associate professor of electrical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and a major in the United States Air Force Reserve" is also nearly identical.
Y Altered the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "although was the only girl." needs a pronoun (although I would also like to known why the group set up by her father because there was no local group with girls also attracted no other girls).
Y Corrected. I don't have a source that provides an answer to your question. My supposition would be that it was related to the way gender norms were strictly applied in the United States in the 1950s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a comma after the subclause "the dean of the ceramics engineering department".
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider moving the comma in the sentence "Two months later she secured a position with Boeing in its computer services division, due to her experience writing programs in Fortran IV." to read "Two months later, she secured a position with Boeing in its computer services division due to her experience writing programs in Fortran IV."
Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amend "Dunbar was given instruct in the German language." to read "instruction".
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any clarification on why George Abbey considered that drafting "a memo to the DFVLR stating that all equipment for the mission had to accommodate a range of sizes." was an appropriate response to "rumors that NASA had deliberately assigned her to the mission as an insult to the Germans." The logic does not seem self-evident.
Abbey never, ever explained the reasons behind his selections for astronaut assignments. The extreme lack of transparency was a contentious issue astronauts and other managers had with his management style. The issue of sexism is not directly addressed, as they were ostensibly objecting to the size of the astronaut. Whether he knew that his selection would annoy the Germans is not known, although given some of his other selections it is likely that he did, and did not care. Abbey would neither tolerate nor accept any criticism of his astronaut assignments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My belief (which I can't express in the article, because I have no proof) is that Dunbar was chosen because she was single and childless. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider changing the repeated word "before" in "No American astronaut had served as a backup since the early days of the Space Shuttle program ten years before, and none had flown or even trained for a long-duration mission since Skylab, almost twenty years before."
Y Deleted "ten years before". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interview purporting to be from the Society of Women Engineers [3] is from a wiki.
It is not a wiki in the sense that Wikipedia is, with anyone allowed to write and update; it just uses MediaWiki software. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. This seems acceptable as a credible source. simongraham (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we need a better reference that she received her PhD than a link to the thesis.
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks, such as one from WITI[[4]], confirm that references are relevant.
Other references appear to be from generally reputable sources, many from NASA.
All images are tagged as solely created by NASA, and it is noted that NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". All have relevant PD tags, apart from S89-41597 orig.jpg, which has a CC tag. All licenses enable the images to be used.
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thank you for another excellent and interesting article. Please take a look at the close phrasing and tell me what you think. My opinion is that it is better to avoid these even if the copy is shared with a PD article, especially as it feels that copyright violations are becoming increasingly complex. I also suggest that would give an opportunity to introduce more summary styles as much of the copy from the biography feels to me to be less compliant with the Manuals of Style we are used to. Please also see my other comments above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the wording in places. I did not copy PD material myself but did add the "This article incorporates public domain material" template.
Good article criterion 1b requires that "it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required.
Although summary style requires that the subject be "very thoroughly covered", the GA criteria require only that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"

@Simongraham: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thank you for all your excellent work. Earwig's Copyvio Detector now reports 61.3% similarity with the NASA article and 57.4% with the TAMU biography, and the overlaps seem to be mainly organisation names and roles, which feel unavoidable. The other issues all seem to be resolved. I will complete my assessment. simongraham (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

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

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Pass

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]