Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/David Scott

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

David Scott

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

David Scott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... we need to get more of the Apollo related articles to a higher level as we note the 50th anniversaries upcoming. David Scott, the only person to fly in space with Neil Armstrong who isn't Aldrin or Collins, has had an interesting life and at age 86, he's still going.Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem

[edit]

Given the pedigree of the nom, spotchecks not completed

Technical checks

  • Is there any reason why some refs do not have p. or pp.? Occurs mostly, but not always, with Scott & Leonov refs, and also with Worden & French refs;
  • The page numbers(?) for Worden & French refs look odd, e.g. ref #75 is 4701, in a book which, according to GBooks, has 312 pages;
  • Same thing happens with some Scott & Leonov refs, e.g. #15 and #16 (GBooks says it's a 448-page book);
  • Slayton too, ref #48.
They are Kindle locations. E-book locations seem to be generally acceptable, at least for FAC purposes, see here. They were added to the Scott/Leonov book while I was working on the article, but are not there for the other two you mention. I've standardized the Scott/Leonov ones to page numbers, now that they are available.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know that. Fair enough. I would have though the E-Book/Kindle editions would have their own distinct ISBN, but apparently not. Have you considered adding the |type=E-Book parameter to the bibliography listing to identify the format used? Factotem (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing on ISBNs Factotem, and looked it up for this article too. I like the solution you have to identify the format; maybe I can finally start using my e-books to cite things now. Kees08 (Talk) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • The Worldcat listing for Burgess & French's In the shadow of the moon : a challenging journey to tranquility, 1965-1969 shows an orig-year of 2007, as listed in the bib, but an actual publication year of 2010. Possibly an OCD moment from me, but you do specify original and publication years separately for Chaikin's work;
On this one, I'm dealing with downloaded chapters from Jstor, and all they say are 2007. I will add what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: The Worldcat listing for Slayton's Deke! : U.S. manned space, from Mercury to the shuttle as published by Forge gives says that it was published in 1995, not 1994 as listed in the article bib. The 1994 edition was published by St. Martin's Press. Not really an issue; the OCD in me demands that this be fixed or it won't pass muster at FAC, but the ISBNs and pagination are identical, so I'd be laughed out of the room if I did;
  • Any reason why Sprekelmeyer's Book does not appear in the bibliography? Also, it lacks location info for the publisher.
It's now cut.
Re Slayton: There is a separate ISBN for the e-book edition which I've now implemented and will insert into the Apollo 15 and also the postal cover incident pages. For Worden, the copyright page says the cloth and electronic editions are identical.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of sourcing

I have cut it. The information seems to be wrong anyway. He is not, apparently, an inductee. Only Worden from the 15 crew seems to be a member.
Wish I saw this before I went looking! Should be here, but is not. Although if any of you live in the area they are having a 50th anniversary celebration next month. Kees08 (Talk) 21:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For Apollo 9 ... I'd go if I was in the area.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about collectspace.com. The editor seems knowledgeable and experienced enough, but I can't see any assurance of editorial oversight.
It was accepted for Apollo 15 postal covers incident FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the FAC and I'm not sure that the quality of the sources was considered in the context of FAC's high standard (pinging @Kees08: and @Usernameunique: if they want to weigh in as the source reviewers and demand from me an apology I will readily give if I've got that wrong). I don't feel the need to insist on this for ACR, though. https://www.courthousenews.com/astronauts-case-over-bulova-ads-cleared-for-liftoff/ might be a better alternative if you do encounter more strident opposition on this. Factotem (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
collectSPACE is often published by Space.com, NBC News, and others (I can find more examples if you need). I try to use sources that are less likely to be challenged when available, and I make sure I avoid the forum posts on collectSPACE, but I consider it a reliable source. We can discuss more, and you do not have to apologize. What are your thoughts with that information? Kees08 (Talk) 20:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on the context. I would think the site reliable about collecting matters, but perhaps less so about legal issues. Are there other news articles? What about a link to the judge's order? It includes at least some of the factual background, and could perhaps be used as a source itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a BLP, thus making it vital that the sources are impeccable, I think it would be better to play safe and look for a source that is beyond reproach. Factotem (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This do? Although I do not believe that Bulova was the official watchmaker of Apollo 15, so it is wrong there. Scott brought it as an extra in his PPK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Courthouse News Service seems to be a more appropriate source. Factotem (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statements

  • There appears to be information in the infobox that is not supported by anything in the main body: attendance at the USMA in 1954, time in space and total EVA time. Also, the main narrative gives September 30, 1977, as the date of retirement from NASA while the infobox says October.
I've sourced those now or made sure the proper info was included in text. I'm pretty sure the September 30 date is accurate, but will look for sourcing elsewhere as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with sourcing

  • Not sure where we stand with images of awards in the infobox. I have seen arguments over ribbon racks in infoboxes. This instance is understated and visually quite nice, but my problem is that on mobile devices I don't believe it's possible to mouseover images to see what they represent, which kinda brings their utility into question. I would also note that the images shown are only a subset of the awards stated in the main narrative.
It's the sort of thing that I don't mess with because when I do, someone appears on my talk page and reads me the riot act. Happy to do whatever reviewers want, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the same 'do not really care boat', but I believe the current consensus is to leave the military images (awards and rank) out, and leave the space images (mission insignia) in. I believe it is just a difference between the MILHIST and Spaceflight projects; I started to reconcile it at some point and then remembered I did not really care enough about it. Kees08 (Talk) 20:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hill to die on, and more concerned aboout the partial listing. My preference would be to just list the awards in text form. I have no problems at all with the mission insignia. Factotem (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Factotem (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very thorough review. I think I've done or responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. All good now. Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for mu clarification, are we cutting the awards or just avoiding the insignia?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote: mission insignia fine as is, awards listed in text form without images. Factotem (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is how I've done it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work. I have a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scott then spent ten days in orbit as Command Module Pilot aboard Apollo 9, a ten-day mission: seems slightly repetitious - "ten days" and "ten-day mission"
  • in the lead, United States Air Force, and Apollo 15 are overlinked
  • in the body, Apollo 9 Dryden Flight Research Center, From the Earth to the Moon (minieries), and University of Michigan are overlinked
  • in the Sources is there an ISSN or OCLC number for the Society of Philatelic Americans Journal?
  • citation 88 (Dinzeo), the title should begin with a capital letter
  • The book, Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race was, suggest adding a comma before "was"
  • investigation entitled “Advanced: straight quote marks are preferred by the MOS
Thank you for the review. Those things are done, mostly my carelessness. I'm not aware of a ISSN or OCLC for the SPA Journal. I'm certain it is a RS, the SPA was a reputable group, some information here, and its journal would have gone through review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have found an OCLC on Worldcat.org, so I have added this now, and made a couple of minor tweaks. Nice work. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Interesting piece – well written, as always, with only a few minor bits to pick up on so far.

Lead
  • "(Col, USAF, Ret.)" is it usual to have this in the opening line – particularly when followed by "retired test pilot, U.S. Air Force officer"?
  • I'm not a big fan of "the seventh person to walk on the Moon", which looks a bit like a comma splice.
  • "with the rank of colonel": I'm not sure we need it linked to the general "Colonel" article, when the "(Col, USAF, Ret.)" is linked to Colonel (United States)
AF pilot
  • "was often poor, and Scott's piloting skills were often tested" often ... often
Apollo 15
  • ""Man must explore. And this is exploration at its greatest."" – no need for the quote marks or to have it in bold, per the MoS

Done to the end of the Postal covers incident. More soon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Up to date I think. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Although it's been a while since I last took any part in an A-class review, I've based this on the FA criteria, which are similar enough, I think. (With apols for the delay - a few days in Dublin got in the way). Nothing more on the rest of the text, but I noticed footnote 18 is missing a page or location. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Will be doing this. Kees08 (Talk) 21:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What personality rights and why this one in particular?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A warning for personality rights is typically included on photographs of identifiable people, per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people, The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it. In many countries (especially English-speaking ones) the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place. However, the term "publishing" should not be construed to include commercial use, as consent is usually required in these situations. Astronauts have sued companies over this in the past, like Aldrin and McCandless. I try to include it on any photos of identifiable astronauts for that reason. It is called Commons:template:Personality rights. I might have missed a couple here that it should be on, I thought this was the only one missing it. Please add it to any that require it. Kees08 (Talk) 00:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, added.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both replaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is what displays text over videos for the hearing impaired. You can edit it by going to Commons:TimedText:Apollo_15_feather_and_hammer_drop.ogv. Here is an example of one I have done in the past. You are not required to do this, and it is a bit of a hassle, but it really helps out with accessibility for our readers. Kees08 (Talk) 00:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pass. I think this is a matter that Commons should discuss and deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you have addressed the above. Kees08 (Talk) 00:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kees08 up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coords: If there's anything more I need to do for promotion, please let me know. I'd like to put this up at FAC next, and my current nom's fairly near promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • and in David Scott's 2006 autobiography "his" autobiography. Did he have more than one?
Fixed.
  • honor student in the Engineering school why is engineering capitalized?
Lower cased.
  • given his first choice of service, the Air Force Why the last clause? It seems redundant since the whole paragraph is about him wanting to be in the Air Force
I've rephrased. I want to hold the reader's hand a bit there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soesterberg Air Base (RNAF) What's with the RNAF? I know that it belongs to the Royal Netherlands Air Force, but I don't think that it's important in this context
That was already in the article when I started work and I didn't like to mess with it. I'll delete it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another, he barely made it to a Dutch base on the edge of the North Sea What happened, another flameout?
Yes. Is it worth mentioning as such?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • those intended as Air Force space travelers were trained ?? Awfully wordy way saying astronaut training
The source says "where future spacefarers were groomed". I didn't want to expand on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just sounds pretentious, but I suppose that's the intent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kraft wrote in his memoirs that Scott's appointment "pissed off Deke to his eyebrows".[80] This was a civilian appointment, and to accept it, Scott retired from the Air Force in March 1975. It might be better to switch the order of these two sentences. Why was Slayton PO'd?
Presumably the postal covers incident. Kraft doesn't actually say but I don't see what else it could be. Scott didn't have any other blots on his record. Sentences reversed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prescott, Arizona court comma after Arizona
  • commentated I usually see this as "provided commentary"
  • the movies Apollo 13
Above three all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link captain, colonel, general on first use.
Brigadier general was already linked. The first two I've linked. Aside from the context of Tom Scott, which has that brigadier general link, the only use of general is in David Scott's non-promotion, which would have been to brigadier general so I don't see the need for another link.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that somebody's changed the cite template parameter for subscriptions. You'll need to fix all that red before the FAC, but no need to do it now.
I'll look into that. I hope they have good reason for something that likely has spread red ink on hundreds of FAs and other articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Except for that last one re the cite template, which will be done before or during FAC, I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found the discussion, if it helps. Kees08 (Talk) 22:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not very enlightening, but thanks. I've gotten rid of the red ink in this article by using separate subscription templates.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else here Sturmvogel 66? Kees08 (Talk) 07:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/David_Scott&oldid=894042365"