Talk:Scott Kelly (astronaut)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Neopeius (talk · contribs) 03:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I shall be happy to give this article a Good Article Review attempt based on the work done on my Solrad 1 article, which recently got G.A. status. --Neopeius (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

All right. I've added the progress table below (everything is checked "-" to start, but that's just default, don't be frightened). My first suggestion is the one given to me: The header should not have citations in it, and the things said in the header should also be said in the body. The header's sole job is to summarize the article, adding no information of its own. At cursory glance, the rest looks pretty good (though missing the stuff already said in the header) so this shouldn't be too rough a process. I'll wait for your fixes and then let's move on! :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, the guidance on lead section citations is that redundant citations should be avoided, and the citations should be less numerous than the main body, as it is an overall summary. They are not prohibited from the lead section. Personal preference, but I like to include them when discussing facts such as dates, mission numbers, and other elements in the lead section that think should be emphasized as verified. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

One other thing. The guidance is to try and complete a review of the entire article and then place the review on hold, rather than wait for edits in a specific section to be made before reviewing the rest of the article. Your most diligent editors will be actively making recommended edits throughout the initial review process, but we don't want to make that become the new standard, as that can be especially demanding on newer and inexperienced editors. I absolutely recommend giving the article a subsequent pass or two once corrections are made to ensure the corrections are up to the GA standard. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@Neopeius: Just a head's up, I'm currently on a work trip. I will make every effort to make the edits to get this article to GA status, but it may take me a little longer than the recommended 7 days from when the review is put on hold until I can get it all wrapped up. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm out of town too

I'll pick this up early next week, and I thank you for your patience I think this exercise demonstrates we need more spaceflight editors! :) ---Neopeius (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Any word on when you can get back to reviewing the article? No harm in this delay, but I would recommend for future reviews that you have a week or two available before starting a review. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

First run at prose

My apologies for the delay.

I have read through the prose (much of which may not be yours!) and it's got some issues. In general, it's not a straightforward narrative, some things are overly dwelt upon while others are glossed over. Please read the following notes, which should not be considered exhaustive, and assume that the person reading this article has little knowledge of any of the programs involved.

Also, again, anything in the header should be in the body of the article as well. If you want to keep citations, I won't argue personal preference, but someone should be able to skip the header and still get all the information.

Fixed.

• "After graduating from high school, Kelly enrolled at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, after originally thinking he had applied to the flagship campus at College Park."

Why is this relevant?

Funny anecdote about Kelly from his personal narative. Removed.

• "In 1996, Kelly received a master's degree in aviation systems from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.[10]"

Without knowing that he had a naval career before, during, and after, this scans oddly.

Removed.

• "He completed his initial flight school at NAS Pensacola, where he flew in the T-34 Mentor,"

Did everyone, or was this a special selection? How does this lead to him flying jets?

I can't speak for all naval aviators, but it's an assignment that Kelly had during his naval career, and it's relevant to say the location.

If everyone flew jets, then knowing he flew the T-34 is superfluous.

Not everyone becomes a jet pilot. While he and his classmates all trained on the T-34, it highlights the branch of service and the time that he was going through training, and distinguishes him from aviators in different branches and eras.

• "One of his initial assignments was to investigate the F-14 crash that killed Kara Hultgreen."

More explanation of the incident would help.

How so? The next sentence details the improved digital flight system that he proposed, and I linked to Hultgreen's page for a better explanation.

• "Throughout his career, he flew over 8,000 hours in more than 40 aircraft, and accomplished over 250 carrier landings.[10][20]"

Comma superfluous (commas not needed for fragments that don't stand alone)

Rephrased.

• "Mark and he were selected to become astronaut candidates in April 1996"

He and Mark. (no need to invert order)

Removed.

• "After attaining the rank of captain in the U.S. Navy, Kelly retired from active duty on June 1, 2012 after 25 years of naval service. He continued to serve as an astronaut and civil servant until his second retirement in April 2016. Throughout his career, he flew over 8,000 hours in more than 40 aircraft, and accomplished over 250 carrier landings.[10][20]"

Same problem as with education, completing modules of his life independently of other things. Recommend things be explained chronologically.

Removed the astronaut part.

• "In March 1999, Kelly was assigned as a pilot to STS-103 on Discovery,"

Was assigned to STS-103 as pilot on Discovery

Rephrased.

• "After several delays, Discovery lifted off at 7:50 pm on December 19, 1999. After 40 orbits, Discovery successfully met with the HST. The STS-103 mission specialists conducted three EVAs to replace gyroscopes and a transmitter, and install a new computer guidance sensor and recorder. On December 25, 1999, the crew celebrated the only Christmas holiday of the space shuttle in orbit with a reading by Curt Brown. After 119 orbits, Discovery landed at the Kennedy Space Center at 7:01 pm on December 27, 1999, after flying 3,200,000 mi (5,100,000 km).[19]:214–230[2]"

Launch and landing times are superfluous. It'd read better with a simple, On a mission that lasted from Dec. 19 to Dec. 27..."

Rephrased and shortened

• "After completing his assignment as a back-up member for Expedition 5 in 2002, Kelly was assigned as commander of STS-118 aboard Endeavour."

What's an Expedition 5?

Added "ISS"

• "After the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, STS-118 was routinely delayed until August 2007"

What is a routine delay?

Removed

• "STS-118 launched on August 8, 2007, at 6:36 pm EDT. During the launch, the orbiter was struck by nine pieces of foam from the external tank, similar to the cause of the Columbia disaster."

"tank...as had also occurred during the launch of Columbia on its final mission."

I want it to be clear that this was the cause of the disaster.

• "The underside of the shuttle was examined by cameras on the robotic arm and the ISS, and was assessed to not be dangerously damaged."

Again, comma not necessary.

Fixed

• "Following a Russian announcement to have a cosmonaut remain on the ISS for one year,"

Following a Russian announcement that a cosmonaut would remain... (and this is just awkward in general -- perhaps active rather than passive voice so we know who did the announcing)

Fixed

• Before Expedition 43/44/45/46 section would be a great place to mention Kelly's retirement from the Navy and why he retired.

I think it's more appropriate under the naval section, as his military retirement didn't cause much change in his astronaut status.

• Under Personal Life, I'd mention that his brother is now a candidate for Arizona Senator.

Added.

@Neopeius: Any word on when further review will occur? I'm about to take a weeklong vacation and won't be available to edit Wikipedia during that time. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

((ping|Balon Greyloy)) Looks like we crossed in the night, and I was foolish and posted to the Talk page directly instead of here properly. But you found it, and that's what matters. :) And now I know how to ping! --Neopeius (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Close, it's {{ping|Neopeius}}

Second run at prose

Back on the case. I'm making minor revisions live rather than suggesting them, in the interest of efficiency. If you find any of them egregious, let me know. :)

@Neopeius:Your edits have gone beyond what I would consider minor changes (punctuation, typos, minor grammar fixes) that are appropriate for a reviewer to make. While I appreciate your improvements to the article, I don't know if you still qualify as someone who has "not contributed significantly to the article." I've never been in this situation before, but I'm not sure if I need to resubmit the article for a new review. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I took a look and they seem fine to me. I have made more significant edits on a GAN before. Kees08 (Talk) 02:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am one to err on the side of caution (#aviation), so I didn't want it to come across as Neopeius and I had collaborated on the article, only to have him review it as well. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no question that this is your article! :) My edits are quite light. You left a fine piece for the review. --Neopeius (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, much improved. An excellent article very close to being read. I have reviewed the citations and prose (the hardest part!) and here are the issues still outstanding:

• Regarding making his careers modular, I understand your reasoning, but I wonder if we might compromise. For instance:

"After attaining the rank of captain in the U.S. Navy, Kelly retired from active duty on June 1, 2012 after 25 years of naval service. He flew over 8,000 hours in more than 40 aircraft and accomplished over 250 carrier landings throughout his career."

Since he is in the middle of his astronaut career when that happens, can we get some insight as to why he retired? And if there be none (though I'd be surprised if that be the case), can we at least add between "2012" and "after" something like ", during his astronaut career (see below)"?

I can't find a reason, but I assume that it was a matter of time in service/time in grade that caused the end of his Navy career (since he wasn't on any path to make admiral).

• Also, citation [17] at the end of that sentence doesn't seem to refer to anything in that sentence. It's about him retiring from NASA, not the Navy.

Fixed. It was a holdover from previous text that has been removed.

• "In 1995, Kelly applied to NASA become an astronaut, alongside his brother Mark."

This sentence confuses me. Did he apply at the same time? Did he apply to become an astronaut alongside his brother, who was already in the corps? Was he physically alongside Mark? If they applied simultaneously, I suggest "Kelly applied to NASA to become an astronaut simultaneously with his brother Mark." If Mark was already in the corps, then "...to join his brother Mark, who had been inducted into the astronaut corps on [DATE]. If Mark had already applied, then ... you get the idea.

Fixed.

• "On completion of training, he was assigned to caution and warning system of the International Space Station."

What does that mean?

Fixed.

• "After Kelly's first flight on STS-103, he served as NASA's director of operations in Star City, Russia.[16]:237–238 He served as back-up crew member to Peggy Whitson for ISS Expedition 5, and to Tracy Caldwell Dyson on Expedition 23/24"

Did he serve as back-up crew after or simultaneously to serving as director of operations? Is "Director of Operations" capitalized?

Not sure of the dates. I would imagine they were somewhat simultaneous, but there would be a lot of training that would bring him home from Russia. I didn't capitalize director of operations as it wasn't capitalized in the book.

• "On December 25, 1999, the crew celebrated the only Christmas holiday of the space shuttle in orbit with a reading by Curt Brown."

I don't understand this sentence. Is this the only time Christmas has been celebrated aboard the Space Shuttle?

Yes. It typically didn't fly around the new year because of concerns with its computer switching the year.

• "After completing his assignment as a back-up member for ISS Expedition 5 in 2002, Kelly was assigned as commander of STS-118 aboard Endeavour. After the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, STS-118 was delayed until August 2007."

Since you bring up a delay, I recommend the following: "...aboard Endeavor, scheduled for [DATE]. Following the..." (you have two afters in a row starting a sentence).

• "Soyuz TMA-01M landed in Kazakhstan on March 16, 2011, and Kelly travelled to TIRR Memorial Hermann in Houston to see Giffords and Mark.[7][30] Mark was the commander of STS-134, the final flight of Endeavour, and launched on May 16, 2011, with Giffords in attendance.[16]:300–301, 308–309 STS-134 had originally been scheduled to launch in February 2011, which would have made the Kelly brothers the first twins to fly together in space.[31][32]"

This passage scans oddly to me. In the prior paragraph, Discovery goes home (on its final mission). I had the impression Scott was on board. Then the Soyuz comes home and Kelly goes to the hospital. It's not exactly clear that Scott was on the Soyuz.

No mention is made that Scott was on the STS-133 crew.

Also, it feels like there's a missing sentence between "Mark." and "Mark was..." Maybe a note on her recovery.

• "NASA began planning for a year-long mission aboard the ISS following a Russian announcement for a similar mission."

I don't see a supporting citation.

It's in Kelly's book, cited at the end of the paragraph.

• "they could not return on Soyuz TMA-16M due to the 200-day orbital lifespan of a Soyuz"

a little clarification would be helpful -- does a Soyuz run out of air? Batteries? Poof out of existence? Or is it just not certified for that length of time?

It's sufficient to say that it has an orbital lifespan. I don't think it's necessary to include in this article the reasons behind it (lifespan of the propellant).

• "After the successful repair of the Mobile Transporter, the ISS crew was resupplied on December 23, 2015,"

This suggests the two incidents are linked (i.e. resupply was impossible without a working Mobile Transporter, or perhaps the repair delayed resupply). Is that the case?

Yes, as the CanadaArm2 mounted on the Mobile Transporter is used to berth the vehicles.

• "On December 15, 2015, NASA astronaut Timothy Kopra, ESA astronaut Timothy Peake, and Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko joined Expedition 46 as flight engineers after Soyuz TMA-19M docked with the ISS.[54] On December 21, 2015, Kelly and Kopra performed an unscheduled EVA to release the brake handles on the Mobile Transporter rail car for the Canada Arm 2, which had unexpectedly stopped when it was remotely commanded by the flight controllers.[51][55] After the successful repair of the Mobile Transporter, the ISS crew was resupplied on December 23, 2015, by the Progress 62 spacecraft.[56] On January 15, 2016, Kopra and Peake performed another EVA and successfully replaced a voltage regulator, but were forced to return early after water began forming inside of Kopra's helmet.[57] On January 8, 2016, Kelly appeared in the thank-you note segment of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, with the first ever thank-you note from space.[58] Russian cosmonauts Malenchenko and Volkov conducted an EVA on February 3, 2016, to retrieve experiments and photograph the exterior portions of the Russian segment of the station.[59] On March 1, 2016, Kelly transferred command of the ISS to Kopra, and returned to Earth alongside Korniyenko and Volkov aboard Soyuz TMA-18M. The spacecraft landed in Kazakhstan, and Kelly returned to Houston the following day.[60][61]"

A lot of "On"-starting sentences.

• "In addition to the biological tests conducted on all astronauts on the station, Kelly also participated in comparative study on the effects of spaceflight with his identical twin Mark as the ground control subject. Kelly's physical, cognitive, and genetic traits were measured before and after the flight. Within several months after returning to Earth, Kelly had adapted to living in gravity. Genetic tests revealed changes in Kelly's gene expression, and an increase in the length of his telomeres relative to before his flight.[62][63][64]"

I kind feel like this is important enough to be at the beginning of the paragraph rather than the end. Also even in the lede. I mean, the thing that made the Kelly brothers so important was the ability to measure them simultaneously while one was terrestrial and the other in orbit.

One thing that Kelly stresses in his book is that he was hired to do a year in space, and that having an identical twin brother was considered an extra bonus, not the reason for his selection. I want to include the information about Mark being used as a control, but I don't think it's necessary to include it more prominently.

• After Kelly received his diagnosis, his brother Mark was also diagnosed and successfully treated.

Is there a date for this? If so, I'd prefer "In [YEAR]" replacing the first clause. Or "In [MONTH] of the same year" if applicable.

I can't find a date for it.

--Neopeius (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Looks like this accidentally dropped a section down, pinging so you know it is here. Kees08 (Talk) 01:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Another question

• "STS-134 had originally been scheduled to launch in February 2011, which would have made the Kelly brothers the first twins to fly together in space.[30][31]"

Was STS-134 delayed due to Gabby's shooting?

As far as I can tell, no. It was delays with its payload and STS-133

Also, are you planning on making further revisions? I think we're very close. --Neopeius (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor revisions as requested, but I won't make any unprompted changes during the review process.

@Neopeius: In the future, make sure that all of you comments fall under the review header. My recommendation is to edit the review page directly. This is important, as the review page will be archived, and you want to have all of the review information available on one page should someone choose to look at it later. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Second round moved to the proper place. While I still have some minor quibbles on phrasing, the article is in fine shape for G.A. I'm passing it. Good job, and thanks for letting me in on the process. --Neopeius (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Thank you, and thanks for doing the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)