Talk:Christa McAuliffe/GA1

GA Review

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

I'd be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

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:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
It needs more info on the disaster portion. Still work to be done to meet GA criteria.
Is it neutral?
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:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

This is fine, for an article of this length, two paragraphs is plenty. If in reading the article I run across something that should be in the lead I'll mention it. Photo is good, warnings tagged to the photo do not seem to apply to this photo but are general warnings posted to all photos uploaded from NASA. Would this be correct?

As far as I know that is correct. The warnings are part of template:PD-USGov-NASA. According to http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/copyright.html, photographs are not protected by copyright unless noted and I don't see any copyright claim on [1], [2], or [3]

Regarding Early life

Generally I frown on wikilinking dates and years. They don't really add to the article unless you are linking the date to a specific event such as September 11 (for example).

I removed the date link. --Jh12 (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it is well-referenced. I'll check the references at the end of the article. H1nkles (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Career as an educator

You mention very briefly about her interest in space. Is there any more information on this? It seems from the article that her interest was something akin to the interest all children have in space. Is there anything in the record that would indicate she had a keen interest in space prior to her applying to the teacher in space program? H1nkles (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the things I have read, it's hard to pinpoint a precise action that indicated a keen interest in space. She seemed to be the kind of person who wanted to push the boundaries and was fascinated in everything. And her interest in space was certainly part of that. I added a childhood quote from the Burgess & Corrigan book, but in many ways it does seem like the "inspiration" she got from space was similar to that of other children. Her Teacher in Space application may give a little more insight; she talks about the excitement at home and at school when the first satellites were launched, the inspiring words by John Kennedy to land someone on the Moon, and how when Sally Ride and other women began to train as astronauts, she saw "an ever-increasing list of opportunities" for her students. --Jh12 (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Teacher in space project and disaster

I think this section could be broken up and expanded. What was the selection criteria for the teacher in space program? What specifically did McAuliffe have that separated her from the other 11,000 applicants? What training did she go through in preparation for the trip? I have to step away now but I'll continue when I return. H1nkles (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is my suggestion: make two sections, one for the teacher in space program and another for the disaster/immediate aftermath. I don't think this impinges on a separate legacy section. You could add generic information about the program, what it was intended to do as well. I think that could be accomplished and still maintain summary style.
Are there any audio quotes or Youtube videos of interviews with her available?
I remember her as such a human figure, and so approachable (of course I was only 11 when all of this happened, but she is burned on our collective conscience as is the image of the space shuttle breaking apart).
The addition of the Morgan trip in 2007 provides a nice end cap to all of this and helps the tragedy to come full circle, well done.
Ticky tack note1-you have crew member as one word and as two in the same paragraph in this section, which one is it?

crewmember doesn't appear to be a word so I'll have to fix that. --Jh12 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ticky tack note2-I think "schoolchildren" is two words, could be wrong, but I think I'm right (BTW I was one of those kids sitting in class watching the whole thing happen, never forget it). H1nkles (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does have an entry on merriam-webster and seems to be used in the media [4][5] --Jh12 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question I had was whether or not there was any criticism of the teacher in space project either before the disaster or afterwards? The article is very glowing, which is fine but we should attempt to flush out any issues that may be easy to overlook. Just want to maintain NPOV. H1nkles (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Legacy

I know that there must be a plethora of memorials and scholarships attributed to her. It might be good to mention a non-American school named after her, since you indicate that there are schools around the world named in her honor. This would go towards showing her international impact (that along with the Venus crater named after her by the USSR).
There is also a monument to the 7 astronauts of the Challenger mission at Arlington cemetary in Washington. It is in a prominent location near the Tomb of the unknown soldier. Being a civilian it is noteworthy, though perhaps not necessary since you have plenty of other material to work with.

It may be worth a mention, although to be honest I think it works better with the Challenger disaster and STS-51L pages because it's a more general Space Shuttle Challenger Memorial [6] as opposed to the more personal grave site in Concord. I uploaded the free images [7] [8], but I eventually pushed to get permission to upload [9] for that very reason. --Jh12 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Quotes

I'm not sure how much this section adds to the article. It's touching and inspiring but I don't really see how it gives us a better picture of McAuliffe. I'll leave it up to you on keeping it or deleting it, I won't fail the article if you decide to keep it. H1nkles (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Notes

Links all check out.
Note 3 discusses the fact that NASA paid her salary while she was in training on her year of absence. Please reference that in the section that talks about her year of absence and mentions that NASA paid her salary.
Is note 20 a book? If so should it be in the References section along with the other books?

I was kind of reserving references for books I had used more extensively, for at least more than one reference. I based that concept partly on the article Edgar Allan Poe, although I may be totally off as I haven't read this anywhere. --Jh12 (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually put every book I use in references and then the author, date and page number go in the notes. I know you have to do that for any book referenced more than once since you could have different page numbers. If that book is referenced just that one time I'll leave it up to your discretion, if it's referenced more than once in the article then it should be moved down to the reference section and the author, date and page number left in the notes section. Does that make sense? H1nkles (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is note 24 a travel guide/tour book? It looks like it is. These are generally not seen as credible sources. If it is a travel guide please consider finding a more credible source. There must be several for the information it cites.
Note 27 is ascribed to a "staff writer", probably not necessary to ascribe to an anonymous writer. H1nkles (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Review

Having lived through this event it does have an effect on me to read the article. I commend you for addressing this biography in a humane way. Below are suggestions for making the article better. At this point I can't pass it on grounds of comprehensiveness, so I will put it on hold for a week and await your comments. If you disagree with my opinions please provide your argument here. I definitely respond favorably to cogent, well-reasoned responses.

Please consider my suggestions in the section on the teacher in space project and the disaster. I feel that more could be added here that would help to make the article more comprehensive yet not compromise summary style.
A few minor spelling issues.
A couple of issues with the Notes section. H1nkles (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right about the comprehensiveness, and it's one of the biggest reasons I placed this article for a GA nom. My biggest problem has been trying to cover important points without going into excessive detail. I'll try to dig up my sources and address some of the issues, but I can understand if I'm unable to complete that work within the next few days and this first GA nom fails. There are definitely three important steps based on your comments, and I'm afraid it will probably take some time for me to complete them: 1. Expand the Teacher in Space section 2. Expand a separate Disaster and aftermath section 3. Criticism to be added into the appropriate places (outside the scope of my current sources) --Jh12 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about a week, how are things coming? I note a lot of work over the last week, do you need a bit more time or are you ready for further review? H1nkles (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts

The article is coming together and is far better than the original. Here are some thoughts:

The Disaster and aftermath section is still pretty slim.

What caused the destruction of the Shuttle?
This was the first space disaster in history and it was broadcast live to millions of school children. The confluence of events, with NASA's big PR push and the Teacher in Space program and to have it end so tragically and so publically. I know this isn't an article on the disaster but I think more could be added to this particular article since she was the central figure.
Is there a citation that would describe the mood of the country immediately after the incident?
What impact did her death have on NASA? You mention they were in the midst of a time when they were looking for funding from anywhere, did this negatively impact the entire space program? Or did it have a positive impact?
For a generation of people it is their Kennedy assassination, they ask where were you when the Challenger exploded. This book gives a very brief explanation of how the shuttle malfunctioned and also puts her death into context, [10]. I think it may be a bit too summary in nature but it gives a little bit of info. Here's another book, [11] that may help answer some of these questions.

I'll give it two more days and then I have to make my final determination. It's been on hold for too long. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry at this point I haven't seen any work on the article in a week or so and I have to make the final determination. I have to fail it on comprehensive issues. Please address this and renominate it. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]