Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercury Seven/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 July 2019 [1].

Mercury Seven

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Mercury Seven astronauts, who were selected in 1959. As late as 1998, they were the most famous astronauts, but they have been eclipsed in recent years by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Still, they include the first American in in space, the first in orbit, the first to fly Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, and the first to hit a golf ball on the Moon. One even flew on the space shuttle, nearly forty years after being selected as an astronaut. This article was previously nominated as a Featured List, but was not promoted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have only trivialities to mention, and none that stop a support at this point:

That's it! Easy to read, and very informative and entertaining. A fantastic article! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article is an unusual one. It was intended as a list, but there was a lot to say about them as a group. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources are all working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Carpenter & Stoever 2003: publisher location missing
  • O'Leary 1971: publisher and location missing
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear comprehensive, and of the standards of quality and reliability required by the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]

Adding this so I do not forget to review. Kees08 (Talk) 07:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) The U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame's inaugural class was the Mercury Seven. I suppose they had an advantage, since the hall of fame was created by the Mercury 7 Foundation. Would be good if we could add whatever we can find on the Mercury 7 foundation, and add in information on the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame (the first class, has a lot of Mercury 7 memorabilia, etc). I just added a couple citations to Grissom's article in case you want to copy/paste them in here. Kees08 (Talk) 07:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a precursor to the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation, I am not sure. Kees08 (Talk) 07:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change manned to crewed per GNL policy (when appropriate, obviously)
    I don't mind "crewed" for Gemini and Apollo (although it sounds a bit crude) but it seems silly when applied to Mercury where there was just one person. Fiddled with the wording to avoid this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any way to avoid consecutive 'which's? MISS encountered technical challenges, which caused funding difficulties, which in turn created conflicts with the two agencies that should have been supporting it, NACA and the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which came first, the term cosmonaut or astronaut? And is there any reason to insert information into the article about the cosmonaut term?
    Can't think of any reason, but both were considered when NASA decided on the name astronaut. In the Soviet Union, adopting the American "astronaut" was considered, but in the end they decided to go with "cosmonaut". The latter makes more sense really. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three-person? A three-man panel
    It was three men. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed down to selection process. Still could use something on the US Astronaut Hall of Fame I think. Thanks for the great additions about the foundation. Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe change service records of graduates of test pilot schools to service records of test pilot school graduates
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link Marine Corps earlier
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't the whole selection process secret or top secret? I thought they had to check into a hotel under a pseudonym. Might be misremembering, not sure it is worth inclusion regardless.
    You're remembering the Next Nine, who checked into the Rice Hotel as "Max Peck". Nobody read my articles.
  • Regarding their welcome, were no Army candidates in that first group?
    None. My guess is that they did not have the required jet experience. In retrospect, experience with rotor aircraft would have been advantageous flying the lunar module. But to my knowledge, no Army test pilot has ever been chosen as an astronaut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think this should be capitalized: to the Space Program
    Decapitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think US spelling is emphasized emphasised
    Corrected.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Coffeeandcrumbs

[edit]

I am going to try hard to find fault where there is likely almost none. These are mostly nitpicking.

  • "USAF agreed to transfer responsibility" is unnecessarily verbose and seems strange (as if they could refuse). Unless you meant "decided", I would change the sentence to "NASA was established on October 1, 1958, and the USAF transferred responsibility for MISS to the new agency." (This also gets around the PROSELINE.) Unless there is some back story I am missing, the USAF obeying orders from the president is not notable as agreeing.
    There's a lot of back story here, mostly not relevant to this article. For a start, in the United States, the President doesn't have that sort of authority. A lot of negotiation was involved. If you're interested, I recommend Rosholt, Robert L. (1969). An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963 (PDF). NASA Historical Series. Washington, D.C.: NASA. OCLC 643260325. SP-4101. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Glenn and Carpenter did not meet all of their schools' degree requirements" should be followed by a colon or semicolon, follow by a sentence or two, instead of the including the completion of Glenn's senior year which broke my reading.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and second bachelor's degree" to "and a second bachelor's degree
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the eve". Slayton's article says "two months prior to the launch of [ Mercury-Atlas 7 ]". I think the latter is better.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slayton's photo seems out of place. Can a portrait from the same period be located? No worries if not.
    There should have been one in the series with the others, but it isn't on Commons. Maybe Kees08 can locate one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a photo. How does it look? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick restoration and removed the autograph: File:Deke Slayton (c. 1960).jpg. Tell me if you hate the colors. I can try again
    The one that is being used now is ID # S64-31709, which means it is from 1964. Other options: 1959 (hmm all I am finding now is that one). Kees08 (Talk) 04:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is to match the others. Otherwise we'd go with the one in the space suit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would crop the photo captioned "The four surviving Mercury 7..."
  • Ref #96 — Says "p. 165" but the chapter link in Warren-Findley (1998) points to page 166 in the source. Remove #Chapt7-5 from the URL. If you want both pages, you can also remove #Chapt7-5 and change to "pp. 165-66".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #94 — Source is actually on p. 2 of the "Tempo" section if there is any way to indicate that in your own citation style.
    I don't think we can. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #93 — Change "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" to "NASA" consistent with other refs and consider adding |website=The 40th Anniversary of the Mercury Seven as seen here, which is the title of the former website (book?). For Shepard, the author's name, Tara Gray, is missing.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #92 — "About ASF ASF". Only 1 ASF in the title. Also please archive; this source will not stay the same forever.
    Internet Archive hasn't archived it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #3 — "p." not "pp."
    Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carpenter et al. (2010) — Remove "Originally published " to be consistent with style at Cunningham (2009). Or vice versa.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compton (1998) — Add |location=Washington, D.C. for consistency
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logsdon & Launius (2008) — Same as Compton — also Eppley (1963) if you like
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not seeing Alt text for File:Mercury Seven astronauts with aircraft.jpg, File:Mercury Seven.jpg, File:LC 14 Memorial Sign 2.jpg, File:LC-14 Mercury 7 (cropped).jpg, and "The four surviving Mercury 7... " photo mentioned above
    Not required for FAC, but I'll see what I can do...

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list in hopes of attracting some additional attention. If not, unfortunately it will need to be archived soon for lack of review. --Laser brain (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Randy Kryn

[edit]

I added a See also for the two Mercury program chimpanzees, and updated one fact, but besides that I could find little to criticize in this already fine and important article. With the improvements that have been discussed and worked on in this nomination, featuring this one during the recent and ongoing focus on historical space missions seems appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
'Fraid not. It needs to meet the MoS. Just the group photo, (And the two with no alt text.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does it not meet the MOS? Adding that it is color or not would not help a visually impaired user understand the function of the photograph. Describing how the astronauts look (if that is what you are suggesting) is not what alt text is for. Kees08 (Talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Stick "|alt=a color photograph of four formally dressed elderly men" in and IMO its MoS compliant. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to the images in the table. Kees08 (Talk) 17:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The images in the table are acceptable with "portrait", although, as I said above, barely; I would have preferred 'Color photograph of John Doe', etc; but, for clarity, I do not feel that this is a requirement for FAC. The alt text for the final group photo needs tweaking; and the two images without alt text need it adding; the first of these you could simply add "|alt=refer to caption", as the existing caption text is explanatory. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no consensus that Featured Articles require alt text. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Alt text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    An FA needs to be fully MoS compliant. The MoS states, under MOS:ACCIM: "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text. See WP:ALT for more information." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of what it says, and I am aware of what the consensus is regarding its interpretation, which is that featured articles only need comply with the specified items, and not the full MoS, and that the requirement for alt text was discussed at length, and that there was no consensus for its inclusion. If you want to restore the alt text requirement, you need to start another RfC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: FYI, this is the most recent discussion I could find on the topic as it relates to FAC. It doesn't seem like there's any appetite to require alt text in Featured articles. I won't even attempt to summarize all the various positions people have on the issue, but suffice it to say there is healthy disagreement on whether alt text is always desirable, along with the normal meta discussion about how much of the MoS is open to interpretation. In short, no one should have been demanding it in any of your nominations. --Laser brain (talk) 23:23, 24 July 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/Mercury_Seven/archive1&oldid=907743794"