Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Scott/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2019 [1].

David Scott

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Kees08 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the four living people to have walked on the Moon. David Scott, commander of Apollo 15, is still around after a distinguished military and NASA career. The article has passed an A-class review.Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]

I have the second-most text in the article by author, but I am going to provide comments and support/oppose accordingly. Coordinators can discount my review at their discretion. Kees08 (Talk) 16:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer to join as co-nominator, I would be pleased to have you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your call; whichever you would prefer me to do. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy either way. But I'd be very happy to have you as a conom.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add me; I am on vacation this weekend but might find some time for editing. Kees08 (Talk) 20:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iridescent

[edit]

Images and sources not checked. This is the version on which I'm commenting.

  • This is a personal gripe rather than anything opposable, but would you consider "swimming records" instead of "swim records"? While the latter is acceptable American English and this is obviously a US topic, outside the US "Scott set the swim record" is as grammatically jarring as "Bolt is the run champion" or "Klitchko won the box match".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before he could finish there, Tom Scott was transferred…—even though it would mean three "Riverside"s in one paragraph the name of the school should probably be given again, as otherwise it reads as if Tom Scott moved to Washington before David could finish swimming, rather than finish his studies.
I've recast it some, see what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really get David Scott wanted an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point, but lacked connections to secure one. His father was a USAF base commander at the time; surely he knew the right people to talk to?
That puzzled me too, but I have nothing to contradict it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soesterberg Air Base … in Northern Europe—Soesterberg is in the Netherlands, and I can't think of any definition of "Northern Europe" that would cover it (nor do any of the various definitions at Northern Europe).
Changed to "there". Scott mentions in his memoirs that the squadron would often be sent to North Africa to be able to train under better conditions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weather in Northern Europe was often poor, and Scott's piloting skills were tested. Once, he had to land his plane on a golf course after a flameout. This seems something of a non sequitur unless the flameout was caused by the weather. (As an aside, I don't really get this "the weather was often poor", unless we mean compared to his previous home in California. The Netherlands may be generally chilly, but it probably has the least extreme weather patterns of anywhere on the planet.)
Scott says (pp. 28-29) "In the often terrible weather conditions in Europe, such [piloting] skills were tested to their limits ... Most difficult of all, though, was flying in the bad weather of Northern Europe." The specific context, though, is the lack of navigational aids at that time, other than a beacon." I'm open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of flying without navigational aids, it makes more sense; although the climate of the North Sea coast is fairly mild, it's often very hazy (it's well-documented that during WW2 German bombers often had great difficulty even finding London). The talk about the flameout gave me the impression that you're saying the flameout was caused by the weather, rather than that the bad weather meant he had to perform an emergency landing as he couldn't get back to base. ‑ Iridescent 07:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The significance (if any) of Yeager to Scott needs to be clarified. As it stands it's not clear whether the reason Scott wanted to be trained at Edwards was specifically because he wanted to meet Yeager, and what the significance of Scott got to fly several times with him is.
From the book, Scott greatly admired Yeager, wanted to follow in his contrails, and saw Edwards as the best path to do so. Edwards is worth a bit of attention, since he is a well-known figure. I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would spell out Cambridge, Massachusetts in full. Not everyone knows where MIT is, or even that there is a Cambridge in MA, and given the strong US Air Force presence in East Anglia and its role as a major center for computing many readers will assume you mean Cambridge, England (I had to check the link to see which we were talking about).
Done.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • Michael Collins wrote later that Scott's selection to fly with Armstrong convinced him that NASA knew what it was doing—convinced who? As worded this could be any one of Collins, Scott or Armstrong.
    My thought is that it is clear from context that it is Collins. If you have a better way of putting it, I'll be happy to implement it.
  • Scott's EVA was scrubbed—at no point prior to this is EVA defined, and you can't assume readers are going to know what it means.
Changed to "spacewalk".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless it's a direct quote, "miffed" is both an inappropriate tone, and unfair to the subject as it implies petulance rather than legitimate concerns.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott performed the first and only stand up EVA on the lunar surface—was this the only one on this particular mission, or the only one ever?
The only one ever. I thought the chosen language made that clear, but am open for suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, this should probably be reworded (or at least get a footnote) explaining exactly what "stand up EVA" means. Especially if this runs on the Main Page and consequently gets a lot of readers unfamiliar with flight terminology, I suspect there will be a lot of good faith edits trying to 'correct' it since it can't be true as they've seen a photo of Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface and he was definitely standing up. ‑ Iridescent 15:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am having some immediate trouble finding a formal definition. I'm going to see if Kees08 or Hawkeye7 know of a correct one.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt:Check the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Extravehicular activity lead: cite reference #1 links to a NASA document giving the definition. The defining attribute is that the astonaut has not fully left the spacecraft. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there's no definition there, just the part of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (an annotated transcript) where the lunar standup EVA takes place.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, Apollo 15 performed the only stand-up EVA on the Moon. So that should be all clarified. I will write a footnote on what a stand-up EVA is and try to find a good citation for it. Kees08 (Talk) 05:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote is fine. Given that this is likely to run twice on the main page (once as TFA, and again at ITN when Scott dies), be prepared if necessary to move the footnote up into the text to make it even more obvious. To the "bright 14 year olds with no prior knowledge of the topic but who are eager to learn" that constitute our target readers, their knowledge of spaceflight is likely to come from movies, and if one doesn't know the jargon it's an obvious if wrong inference that a normal EVA means "floating in space" and a stand-up EVA means "standing on a celestial body". ‑ Iridescent 08:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming we have a photo of the LRV somewhere I'd strongly recommend including it, even if it means losing one of the other images or the box quote. Ultimately Wikipedia is about engaging the readers' interest, and moon buggies are inherently cool. Ditto to the footage of the Falcon lifting off from the moon.
I've added one of Scott on the LRV. I am reluctant to replace what is almost certainly the most famous bit of film that Scott appears in for one that does not show Scott, cool though it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph beginning Apollo 15 splashed down in the Pacific Ocean seems to have been moved into the wrong section.
I saw it as transitional. I've moved it as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • an officer who many assumed would head the air force some day—I appreciate this is a direct quote and not in Wikipedia's voice, but it confuses me; why did many assume this, as his career to this point appears to have been perfectly respectable but no more so than that of hundreds of other officers?
I've cut it. Worden is not exactly friendly towards Scott and on balance, this isn't something he could know. Deke Slayton says something similar, but again it's speculative (granted, Deke would have been in a better position to know).
  • In 1992, Scott was found by a Prescott, Arizona, court to have defrauded nine investors in a partnership organized by him—I appreciate this is a BLP and subject to sensitivities, but you can't throw a curveball like this without explanation. What was he alleged to have done, was he criminally convicted or was it just a civil case, and what penalty/sentence did he receive?
Civil. I've found a story on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is of Scottish descent—what does this have to do with anything, and why is it suddenly thrown in out of nowhere two-thirds of the way through the article?
I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Awards, honors, and organizations" section, it should probably say what each of the awards was given for. It doesn't matter if it makes the section unwieldy, as it's the last section on the page so even if the reader gets bored and gives up they haven't lost anything.
Most of them are for Apollo 15, one way or another, as are some I did not mention, such as the crew being the Grand Marshals of the Orange Bowl Parade. I'll see what I can dig up.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the awards do not have specific rationale attached to them (sometimes they do). I can usually dig up information like when they were awarded and who awarded them. I added that information into the article. I have someone looking through Aviation Weekly archives for FAI information (I have seen sources say Komorav medal, and Gold Medal, some in 1971, some in 1972?). I think the only way you will find the rest of these is in his book, if anywhere. I can never find them online. three NASA Distinguished Service Medals (1969, 1971, 1978), a NASA Exceptional Service Medal (1966),[91]two Air Force Distinguished Service Medals, the Distinguished Flying Cross Kees08 (Talk) 06:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this but I have my doubts as to whether it is a RS. What it points to is what you would expect, all or virtually all of his awards were associated with his spaceflights (plus one NASA award on his retirement as an administrator).--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have used that as a source at FAC before, I think you can use it here. Kees08 (Talk) 23:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anymore to add for the awards Wehwalt, not sure if you planned on expanding it further? Kees08 (Talk) 05:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the Military Times ones, and that's about all I have there. I'm going through the review during the course of today (US time).--Wehwalt (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've covered the same information already, so I think we're done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are all fairly minor, and barring the unforeseen assume this is going to end up as a support. ‑ Iridescent 08:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Iridescent, I think we've got (or have answered) all of yours.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All looks fine now; changing to support. ‑ Iridescent 08:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, and for supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

All very minor stuff:

  • Early life and education
  • "Although there were servants to aid the family, the Scotts did not have much money, and David remembered his father as a strict disciplinarian." – This seems to me to cram too much disparate material into a single sentence. The first two parts sit well together but the third seems pretty unrelated to them.
  • "...wanted to be commissioned in the newly-established Air Force. Since the Air Force..." – the repetition of "Air Force" could be mitigated if you were to unpipe the first mention.
Both the above done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Air Force pilot
    • "Undergraduate Pilot Training" – Doesn't Really Need Capital Letters, I think.
A search reveals support for the caps, for example here. I am going to leave this for my conom who may have greater knowledge of the subject matter than I do.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with whichever you decide, jointly or severally. Tim riley talk 19:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be capitalized, as it is the formal name of the course. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apollo 15
  • "the first and only stand up EVA" – the second and third words seem unnecessary.
Addendum: Since adding my comments I have read the reviews above, and I should say that it didn't occur to me before seeing the exchanges about Iridescent's eleventh bullet point that this was the only such incidence on any moon mission. Some clarification would indeed be good. – Tim riley talk 08:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let us let the discussion up there answer for this as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once there, Scott marveled at the beauty of the scene" – just checking that this is covered by reference 58 at the end of the para.
  • NASA administrator
  • "retired from the agency effective September 30" – "effective" seems an odd word. "On" seems the mot juste.
  • Awards, honors, and organizations
    • I don't know that "Honorary Doctorates" wants capitalising (nor "Astronautical Science" for that matter) but to each his own.
  • References
  • 88 – the source is headlined "Tarnished man from the moon to marry TV's Anna", rather than "TV's Anna to marry tarnished man from the moon" as given here.
  • 95 – Does not follow the original capitalisation. Is this deliberate?
  • 99 – Ditto (and the version here looks a bit odd to my eyes)
Those are fixed. As I understand it, we alter the original capitalization to be consistent, which I hope we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to frighten the horses there. I'll look in again and, I hope and expect, add my support. – Tim riley talk 08:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, with the exception of the standup EVA, which is up at Iridescent's, that would seem to be everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed so. Happy to support now. A most readable article, clear, impartial, well and widely referenced, and for an article about a contemporary surprisingly well illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 19:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Balon Greyjoy

[edit]

The article is looking pretty good. I have a few comments that I don't see addressed above. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that it's necessary to mention that his family had servants, as it's (as far as I understand) commonplace in some parts of the world, even for those who don't have much money, it's just not what most Americans would expect for someone who is not wealthy.
Sentence cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming when you say that his father was "posted overseas" it meant that he was deployed, not just stationed abroad? I would indicate that he deployed (and to which theater, if that's available), as "posted" implies (at least to me) that he moved somewhere, which doesn't match with the following sentence that he was gone from the family for three years.
Thanks for the catch. Fixed.
  • I would add the year that the Air Force Academy was founded (assuming 1955 if the first class graduated in 1959), not the year that the first class graduated. I had similar information in the Tom Stafford article, and used a note to state that it hadn't been established yet.
The source says founded in 1954, tracing to Eisenhower signing the bill authorizing it, so that's good enough for me. I've changed to that basis.
I do not see it in his memoir nor in the potted biographies NASA put out about the astronauts, like the one sourced in the article or in the Apollo 9 press kit. Does West Point award degrees in fields, or does everyone get the same (lol) major?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the US service academies do have degrees in different fields, at least in the modern era. As for West Point back then, a quick review of the pages of some West Point grads don't list the degree fields (Frank Borman, Ed White, Mike Collins, Donald H. Peterson), but the Buzz Aldrin and Alfred Worden ones do. My guess is that they did have degree fields back then, but they may have been considered less "important" than they are today.
Even books like the French/Burgess one glaze over this point when discussing Scott. He really discusses the West Point experience more than the specifics of what was studied in his memoir. We're a tertiary source, so I guess that's good enough for us.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I did some searching of own and found nothing! Not your fault that Scott didn't record it; I'm just surprised that it can't be found.
  • "Scott hoped to advance his career by becoming a test pilot, and hoped to be trained at Edwards Air Force Base, home to Chuck Yeager, first man to break the sound barrier." Since all test pilots got to their position by attending Test Pilot School at Edwards, I would shorten this. I know that Yeager is most associated with Edwards, but he was away from Edwards in 1955-1962, when Scott was getting ready for TPS/attending MIT. Also, the sentence "Scott hoped to follow in Yeager's path by training at Edwards" seems redundant. I think this could be combined with the previous sentence, and just state that Scott idolized Yeager. My take is "Scott hoped to advance his career by attending Test Pilot School at Edwards AFB, where his personal idol, Chuck Yeager, had broken the sound barrier in 1947."
Thinking about this one. Scott refers to Edwards as "home to the greatest test pilot of them all, the legendary Chuck Yeager" in the time frame of 1960 but he may be waxing poetic a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though as Scott was only a captain, he and Colonel Yeager were not on intimate terms" I don't think this is necessary to include, since there's no indication they would be friends, with Yeager as the head of the school and Scott as a student
I thought it was decent follow-up on the previous discussion of Yeager, since we don't mention him again until Scott's at Dryden, and it's also a way of dropping in Scott's rank. He's making progress in his military career.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, referring to the two just above, I've cut way back on the Yeager, which I hope resolves those.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would replace "space traveler" with "astronaut," as the term had already been coined by the time Scott was selected
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked F-104 to its page. Do you have an altitude that they would take the jet, as "edge of space" is very generic. Also, while the F-104 could certainly climb really high (according to its page, the record would have been about 36,000 m around the time Scott was flying it), that's not the "edge of space," in the sense that it was near the Kármán line
Scott uses "fringes of space". I've inserted the altitude.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first J Mission, science was to be the emphasis of Apollo 15, which would have a longer stay on the Moon's surface and the first Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)." This sentence reads a little awkwardly, as it is the first sentence in the paragraph and it's not clear until later in the sentence that Apollo 15 would be the first J mission. My take is "Apollo 15 would be the first J Mission, which emphasized scienctific research with a longer stay on the Moon's surface and the use of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)."
Done with slight variation.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence about the Genesis Rock, it doesn't make sense to say that the rock was "a plagioclase" as that is a mineral that was found in the rock, not a rock itself. I would say "At Spur Crater, they discovered one of the most famous lunar samples, a plagioclase-rich anorthosite from the early lunar crust, that was later named the Genesis Rock by the press."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA administrator" seems like an odd choice for a sub-section name, since NASA Administrator is an actual job title, not just an administrator who works for NASA. Since all of his work was in management at Dryden, maybe something like "Dryden Flight Research Center director?"
Changed to "NASA manager".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the redlink for his book with Leonov. Per WP:BOOKCRIT and WP:NBOOK, the book itself doesn't have sufficient notability to merit an article, as I can't find reviews from well-known reviewers or other notable sources, it hasn't won any awards or been made into a movie.
Redlink removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've addressed, or at least answered, everything. Thank you or your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Nice work on this article. One comment left: "Commandant of the school was Chuck Yeager, first person to break the sound barrier, who Scott idolized. Scott got to fly several times with him." Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't there be some articles in this sentence, for example: "The commandant of the school was Chuck Yeager, the first person to break the sound barrier, who Scott idolized." On a style note, I would combine that Scott flew with him several times with the part about him idolizing him, as I think the second sentence comes across as short and matter-of-fact. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a "the", I think we can do without the second one and jointed the sentences with a semicolon. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Great job with this article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Links to sources are all working, according to the external links checker tool
  • A number of points relevant to format were raised and dealt with as part of the A-class review. I have a few more:
  • non-standard p. range in ref 28
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 59:
  • lacks publisher and access date.
  • What makes "David Darling" a high quality reliable source?
Thank you for the review. I think between us we've gotten those.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: This all look good to you? Thanks again for the review. Kees08 (Talk) 22:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images seem to be pertinent to the section they are in, and I did not encounter any license issues. Some images do not have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt text. Kees08 (Talk) 05:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also trimmed the hammer/feather video to include just the experiment and added TimedText for accessibility. Kees08 (Talk) 05:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/David_Scott/archive1&oldid=898796451"