Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Elliot See

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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Elliot See

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk),Hawkeye7

Elliot See (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Astronaut Elliot See died in a T-38 crash in 1966. A GA currently, Hawkeye7 and I improved it since then, and we believe it is ready for an A-class review. Kees08 (Talk) 21:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Alt text?
  • ExLinks, RefLiinks etc all fine.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
OK.
  • The first paragraph of the main article starts with a paragraph which ends with four sentences, of which three commence with "See". Tweak possibly?
    checkY Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The United States' involvement in World War II came around the time when See graduated high school." "around"? Do we not know precisely? And either way, could we have a date? (Being non-American I have no idea at what age one graduates high school and had to look up See's date of birth, do some mental arithmetic, and then wonder if "involvement" meant 7 December 1941 or referred to earlier military activities.)
    checkY In 1941, but see did not graduate from high school until early 1945. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While there". "there" being the University of Texas or Phi Kappa Psi? (As a non-American I had to look up Phi Kappa Psi and read it in some detail to understand what "pledged" meant. I think that this sort of organisation might offer flying lessons, and the idea of a university offering them seems novel to me. If I have the wrong end of the stick and it is the university which he was "there" while he received the lessons, apologies.)
    Phi Kappa Psi is linked. I think the University of Texas is understood. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So I am clear: he learnt to fly while at UoT, and being a member of PKP had nothing to do with this - yes?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
checkY
  • And a "plebe year" would be?
    checkY A fourth year student. At other American universities they would be called a "freshman", but this term would not be as understood outside the US. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you any evidence to support the suggestion that plebe would be understood outside the US? (I would have considered myself reasonably cosmopolitan, have worked in (UK) education most of my life and have close relatives who have been educated in 11 countries and 3 continents and I have never heard of it. I understand that my not having heard of the expression is not a reason for faulting it, but it does give me pause.)
    It depends on how familiar you are with military colleges. They do not use the terms freshman, sophomore etc., but they do number the classes in what would seem reverse order to some. So the plebes are Fourth Year students, and the oldest are First Years. To avoid confusion, we stick to their terminology, and provide a link for the curious. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little reluctant to let through a phrase which I am sure will mean nothing to the majority of the readership, but it is linked and I can't think of an obviously more felicitous phrase, so ok.
checkY
 Done
  • "and then was at Kings Point, New York" Apologies again, but I am missing entirely what this is meant to communicate.
    It means that he spent some time in Mississippi before moving to the main campus in New York. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
 Done
 Done
  • "He earned his marine engineer's licenses and was commissioned as an officer in the United States Navy Reserve and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in marine engineering in 1949." All three in 1949?
    Yes, simultaneously. You get all three by graduating from the USMMA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. In which case consider replacing the first "and" with a comma.
    Replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
OK. A bit of research suggests that "unimproved" is largely a US usage in this context, but I think that it should be clear to a reader.
 Done
Damn. I should have been able to work that out.
 Done
  • "The couple later had two more children; Carolyn in 1957, and David in 1962" → 'The couple later had two more children: Carolyn in 1957; and David in 1962.'
    checkY Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See rejoined General Electric in 1956 as a flight test engineer after his tour of duty." Optional: 'See rejoined General Electric in 1956, still [or again] as a flight test engineer, after his tour of duty.'
    Seems a little redundant with "rejoined .. agian" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
 Done
 Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was rapid and responsive. Thanks. A couple of follow up queries above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2
[edit]
Nice tweak.  Done
Oops. Apologies. checkY
 Done
  • "Every astronaut had a core competency, and See was in charge of guidance and navigation systems." Either "core competency" → 'special responsibility' or "See was in charge of" → 'See's was'.
    See was not in charge of anything; he was tasked with developing expertise in a particular area. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment above that "See was not in charge of anything" would seem to contradict the article's "See was in charge of guidance and navigation systems".
    Re-worded and expanded the passage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely worded.
It seemed obvious to me, but if you prefer no "the" feel free to remove it.
  • "They were the first civilians selected for potential spaceflight." Optional: "potential spaceflight" → 'astronaut training'?
    No, it means actually assigned to a mission. The "potential" is because the mission was changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Personally I think it may be clearer to have something like 'They were the first civilians selected for potential spaceflight mission '. Bu that may just be me.
 Done
  • "(to develop experiments)" I am genuinely unsure how one develops an experiment. Were these experiments connected to the space missions?
    checkY To be carried out during a space flight. It was common for space missions to conduct a few scientific experiments during each mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
checkY
  • "CAPCOM": see MOS:ABBR, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses".
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prime crew pilot (second seat)" I don't understand what is meant by "prime", nor "crew", nor "second seat".
    The crew are the two astronauts who fly the Gemini spacecraft. For each mission a "prime" crew was designated to fly the mission, and a "backup" crew understudied them in case the prime crew crashed their T-38 into a building and killed themselves or something like that. Each crew had a commander, who occupied the left seat, and a pilot, who occupied the left (co-pilot's) seat. If they went somewhere in a car, Armstrong, as commander would occupy the left (driver's) seat. In a T-38, he would occupy the front (pilot's) seat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • "command pilot (first seat)" As above, "first seat".
checkY
checkY
checkY
  • "The Gemini 9 mission was similar to the previous mission." But you didn't give any information about the previous mission!
    checkY We have. Tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Astronaut Maneuvering Unit (AMU)" → 'astronaut maneuvering unit (AMU)'
    checkY Gadget never did get used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an Agena". I am now completely at a loss; this would be?
    checkY Linked Agena target vehicle
  • "They were going to Building 101, where the Gemini spacecraft was built, for two weeks of rendezvous simulator training with their backup crew" given that Building 101 is mentioned in the previous sentence, how about something like 'The Gemini spacecraft had been built in Building 101, and See and Bassett were about to commence two weeks of rendezvous simulator training there with their backup crew'?
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "wasn't aggressive enough." " → ' "wasn't aggressive enough".'
    The original is correct. See MOS:LQUOTE Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
checkY
Fine.
My internet has gone down and it may be a few days before I can get back to this. Apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; no rush. Hawkeye took care of most of these while I was at work, but if either of you need my opinion on something just point it out to me! Kees08 (Talk) 19:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Two engineer visits, many hours speaking to call centres, seven days of frustration, but finally my internet seems to be back up. I am picking off some easy bits and will try to get back to you on everything by the end of the day. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I make it that there are three comments left outstanding above:

Great work. Happy to support. Apologies again for the hiatus in the middle of the review. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & support by Pendright

[edit]

Lede:

  • ... and joined the Aircraft Gas Turbine Division of General Electric.
    The position he accepted is not mentioned, but later in the lede it says,"See rejoined GE as a flight test engineer ..." Including or excluding both positions would be at least consistent.
    Added that he joined GE as an engineer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

  • Elliot McKay See Jr. was born on July 23, 1927 to Elliot See Sr. ...
    With the format used, a comma is required after the year 1927.
    Americans sometimes use the parenthetical comma and sometimes omit it. Making style rules without understanding the basics of grammar helps make the language more difficult to understand, even for native speakers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ! It’s well settled in American English that a comma is used with this format. To this point, your articles on other American subjects follow this accepted practice quite consistently. Pendright (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're forgetting the removal of the parenthetical commas around "Jr." and "Sr." per MOS:JR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is month, day, and year, but thanks for pointing this out. Pendright (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A fair compromise! Pendright (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASA:

  • They flew to Kennedy Space Center, from which their spacecraft would be launched; North Carolina to develop experiments to be conducted during the flight; and to McDonnell Aircraft in St Louis, where the Gemini spacecraft was made.
    consider these changes: They flew to Kennedy Space Center where their spacecraft would be launched; then to North Carolina to develop experiments to be conducted during the flight; and to McDonnell Aircraft, in St Louis, where the Gemini spacecraft was made.
    That would not be correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but some tweaking was done. Pendright (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death:

Finished - Pendright (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance for closing the one open item remaining. Pendright (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Pendright (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

CommentsSupport by Balon Greyjoy

[edit]

Looks like I'm a bit late to the reviewing party. The article looks in good shape already.

Lead
[edit]
  • Is there a more specific location than the "Far East" for the USS Boxer? Was it supporting operations in Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan? If there is nothing more specific, I think it would make more sense to say the "Western Pacific" instead.
    • Using Western Pacific here and then specifying the locations in the article Kees08 (Talk)
  • What is a group leader in the context of a flight test engineer? Is it like a project manager for an engineering project, or the equivalent of a flight lead/mission commander for a fighter pilot?
    • Do not have the slightest clue; Burgess does not elaborate. Kees08 (Talk)
  • I would shorten/break up the sentence about rejoining General Electric, and change the last part to just say that he flew test flights at Edwards Air Force Base. It's a bit of a run-on, and mentions three times that he was a test pilot.
    • I rephrased it a bit to remove the Lancaster part (same as in the body). I would guess that most of the test pilots live in Lancaster (I suppose maybe more live in Rosamond), but regardless didn't think it was necessary for inclusion. Reworded to remove some of the redundancy of the test piloting. Is it better now? Kees08 (Talk)
  • I would break up the long sentence that is the final paragraph of the lead. I would make the first sentence about his selection, both to becoming an astronaut and Gemini 9, and then make the second sentence about his death.
Early life and education
[edit]
  • Put the "née Drummond" in parentheses, per MOS:CHANGEDNAME
  • Was he on the ROTC Rifle Team while still in high school?
  • I would combine the sentences about the sports he played in high school, and where he went to school.
  • I would remove the first two sentences about WWII/draft. I think it would make more sense if See had deliberately gone to college to avoid the draft, or had been drafted because he had been unable to go to college.
  • Was the "aviation cadet training" that he applied to the Aviation Cadet Training Program (USAAF). I would link to the appropriate page.
  • Remove the "applied for military officer training" and state that See applied and received an appointment to the USMMA. "Military officer training" implies, at least to me, that it is some form of direct commissioning program, like an officer candidate school, rather than an educational institution that awards military commissions upon graduation. Additionally, while graduation from USMMA does come with a commission, the school's purpose (and wartime accelerated curriculum) is to produce merchant marines, not military officers.
    • The source says He decided to apply for military officer training, and in 1945, while living in Grand Prairie, Texas, he was thrilled to receive an appointment to the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point on Long Island. Do you think saying something like "See wanted to be a military officer. The USMMA granted military commissions upon graduation, so he applied to the USMMA at Kings Point" (exact phrasing TBD). Do you think that adheres to the source enough while explaining the nuances? Kees08 (Talk) 19:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like your take on it (although I think it could be one sentence). I would say "See hoped to become a military officer, and applied to the US Merchant Marine Academy to get his college degree and a commission."
      • The USMMA is "some form of direct commissioning program". On graduation you can elect to take eight years' service in the reserves or five on active duty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we may have different opinions on what is meant by a direct commissioning program. In my opinion, it's the short basic training that accepts people with the appropriate prerequisites and commissions them as officers at the end, as opposed to service academies and ROTC that sponsor a student's college career and provide some military training, with the intent of having them commission at the end. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "at Long Island, New York" from the first sentence. It could be confusing to readers, especially those unfamiliar with how big Long Island is, that the location is given as "Long Island" in one place and "Kings Point" in another.
  • I would add that USMMA changed it's curriculum from an accelerated wartime program. I was confused when I first read that sentence, as I didn't realize that it was never not a four-year-degree-granting college.
  • What is the Propeller Club? I did a search, and it seems to be an organization of shipping industry professionals. How involved was See in this while he was a student in college?
[edit]
  • I would state that the Luscombe suffered an engine failure, rather than the engine was sputtering, as that makes it more clear why he had to make an emergency landing
    • The source does not say it failed, so I changed it to 'began to fail'. The engine could possibly have been working fine enough to get to a runway but they were in a good area to perform an emergency landing and if they kept going they would be over a more populated area. Just one scenario that is possible; so since we know it began to fail and not that it explicitly failed, phrased it that way. Kees08 (Talk) 19:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't make sense to say that See was called to active duty because of the Korean War, but his active service time began after the war ended, and his first deployment was to the Mediterranean instead of the Pacific
  • Again, I would change the "Far East" to something more specific, or at least the "Western Pacific" if there's no further data
    • Done per other comment in lead. Kees08 (Talk)
      • See was called to active duty in 1953, during the Korean War. Owing to the time it took to train the air group, they did not depart until 1954. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are there dates for this? Seeing as CAG 14 left in September/October 1954, it seems unlikely that the carrier air wing had been mobilized at least 14 months prior . That's a really long deployment prep, even by today's standards, when training times have generally increased. Nitpicking on dates aside, it's a disconnect to say that he was called to active duty because of the Korean War, but then state that he left for the Mediterranean. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See primarily focused on line maintenance, but also became proficient at carrier landings." What does this mean? Presumably, he was already proficient at carrier landings, as he had survived doing them about the Randolph before his cruise on the Boxer. Is his about him having to focus on the more managerial aspects of naval aviation as he promoted as an officer?
    • The source says His principal responsibility on the cruise was line maintenance, but he also became proficient at landing on the carrier under all conditions. Not sure what we could change based on that. Kees08 (Talk) 19:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • US Naval aviation maintenance is handled differently than Air Force aviation, in that naval aviation squadrons have their maintenance included in the same squadron, and their senior leaders are aviators (whereas US Air Force units have dedicated maintenance squadrons led by maintenance officers). It's a common responsibility for an O-3 to be in charge of squadron maintenance in their "desk job" portion of their work. I would not prioritize one duty over the other, and just state that in addition to his flying job, he oversaw line maintenance. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a difference between "qualified" and "proficient". Here it means that he qualified for night and all-weather (instrument) landings. Most of the naval aviators of the day were not so qualified. I might also add that two of his fellow aviators were killed during this non-combat tour. Taking and landing on a straight deck in jetys was no easy feat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not disputing that a qualification means a person is good at their job, or that carrier landings are easy, but how is it being decided when he suddenly became proficient? Presumably, every time he flew he became increasingly proficient, so it's not like he one day crossed from "not proficient" to "proficient." His entire flying deployment is being characterized by him becoming better at landings, when there is not mentioned of him being bad at it previous; he was good enough on a previous deployment not to crash. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would replace one of the "reached/reaching the rank" with "was promoted to" to avoid repeat phrases (as I start almost every sentence here with "I would...")
    • Always afraid I will word sentences like that incorrectly since I am non-military; reworded it like you suggested. Kees08 (Talk)
NASA
[edit]
  • "A problem that was assigned to See was determining..." could be "See was assigned to determine..." to make See the subject of the sentence, rather than it being the problem.
    • This was rephrased per Rupert's suggestions, let me know if you think further improvement is warranted. Kees08 (Talk)
  • I would combine the first two sentences about the lighting conditions, as "the best lighting conditions for landing on the Moon" isn't very self-explanatory, and requires another sentence to explain what the problem was. It's more efficient to describe the problem immediately, with something like "...to determine if the lunar landing should occur in direct sunlight, or using light reflected from the Earth."
  • What was the ultimatum that Kraft gave them? Would he prematurely end the mission if a solution wasn't found in 24 hours? If so, that should be included, otherwise it just seems like Kraft was assigning an arbitrary deadline (which I'm assuming he wasn't)
  • Is there any more information about what was wrong with the Gemini 5 fuel cells, and how they were fixed?
    • The problem is included ('the fault was eventually traced to a thin, insulated copper wire that conveyed heat to a tank of supercooled liquid oxygen, keeping it in a state between liquid and gas'). It does not list the solution. I can maybe find it in a post-flight test report. I would rather not have the problem without the solution; I will see what I can find. Kees08 (Talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the spring to the fall, Armstrong and See trained for this mission. They spent a significant amount of time training in the spacecraft simulators." These two sentences could be combined, as they are both short and address training. Also, the year of training should be included (I'm assuming it was 1965), as the paragraph starts out describing December 1965, and then talks about spending spring to fall training, which comes across as the subsequent spring to fall.
    • The sentence after it is quite long, and you are supposed to vary the length of sentences. Added the year and the specific mission because I think that was not clear. Kees08 (Talk)
  • What facility/organization in North Carolina was developing experiments for the Gemini 8 flight?
  • I would remove "But" and combine the sentence about See's Gemini 9 selection with the sentence about Dave Scott replacing him.
  • Why is "first seat" included after stating that See was selected as a command pilot? I haven't heard that term used before when describing Gemini crew positions, and I think it's clear from the term "command pilot" alone that See was the mission's leader.
    • Since Apollo uses commander, command module pilot, and lunar module pilot, and the fact that command module pilot and command pilot sound pretty similar, it seems to be a useful clarification. A reader unfamiliar with Project Gemini probably is unaware that there was no commander position and that it was just command pilot and pilot. Would prefer to leave it for that reason. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Why was Slayton so critical of his selection of See to Gemini 9? I can't help but think it is Slayton looking back with regret at assigning See to a mission that he died in support of. See should presumably have been assigned to some mission eventually, so I don't get why Slayton referred to it as a "bum decision"
    • Reading between the lines in the book, I think because it killed Bassett, who he had a lot of plans for (would have been CMP of the Apollo 8 mission). Don't think I can include it in the article, but that's what I got out of it. Anyways, I removed a bit of that because the doubts make more sense in the death section. Can add back if you think so, but it seemed weird where it was. Kees08 (Talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Death
[edit]
  • I would add and link the names of the Gemini 9 backup crew
  • Remove the Slayton quote about the slow flying; the previous sentence already mentions the pilot error of See flying too slowly, and Slayton's information would have come from the official report.
    • I think it would be good to have at least something from his book, he wrote a whole paragraph on his flying ability. The investigation concluded that the crash was pilot error, but I didn't need a board to tell me that. Of all the guys in the second group of astronauts, Elliot was the only one I had any doubts about. I had flown with him - so had other guys - and the conclusion was just that he wasn't aggressive enough. Too old-womanish. I mean, he flew too slow-a fatal problem in a plane like the T-38, which will stall easily if you get below about 270 knots. Any particular quote you want? (consequently, I am about 1/3 of the way through his book. It is pretty entertaining, and we had a similar upbringing so that made him rise in Kees08's super official favorite astronaut rankings) Kees08 (Talk) 20:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • As entertaining as I found Slayton's book (granted, his attitudes on black and women astronauts have not aged well), I can't help but think that Slayton's criticism of him is rooted in the test pilot mentality explored in The Right Stuff, in that pilots would rather criticize fallen aviators than admit that good pilots can make mistakes that get them killed. It's fine to include Slayton's criticism of See's flying ability, but I think a quote by Slayton describing the crash itself will just be Slayton's take on the official report; it's not like he was there on the day of the crash and had additional information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


That's all that I have. Nice work on this article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: I believe all points have been addressed; I think you are on vacation now and there is no rush to finish this off, so take your time replying back. Kees08 (Talk) 00:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just got back from the mainland, and have added my comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Kees08 just checking you've seen this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking in, I have been meaning to leave a note. Plan to take care of this after the Apollo 11 50th anniversary on 21 July if that is all right, have some article cleanup and fact checking I want to get done on those articles ahead of time. Kees08 (Talk) 06:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative, I left a few reply comments that weren't addressed, but I think this article meets A-class standards, regardless of if they are addressed or not. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work so far. I have the following comments/suggestions (apologies if any of my comments replicate those above): AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, link "NASA"?
    • It is linked, but is overlinking in my opinion. Linked right before astronaut (sea of blue issue). Kees08 (Talk)
  • did he have any siblings?
  • He was also on the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Rifle Team: was this at high school? If so, wouldn't it have been JROTC? (I could be wrong, as I'm obviously not from the US). If it was ROTC, wouldn't this have been when he was at university, so should it be mentioned a bit later in this section (to maintain chronological order)?
    • It was high school. The source says ROTC, but I believe you are right about it being JROTC. What should I do since it does not match the source? Kees08 (Talk)
      • G'day, you will have to go with the source, but maybe there is an elegant way to deal with the issue. For instance, perhaps you could just say he was also on the rifle team (dropping mention of ROTC altogether. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason is that the distinction you're drawing only occurred in 1964. Before that, there was just one ROTC program. So the link is correct Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for clearing that up; you learn something every day! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Were there ROTC programs in high schools? Were they equivalent of JROTC today, in that they boosted your rank by a grade if you enlisted after high school? If it was called ROTC in See's high school, that should at least be clarified in this, as the average reader will know that ROTC is a college level program, and be confused why See was participating during his high school years. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to See, "going to college became the most important thing to me": suggest cutting the quote at "thing"
  • and then was at the main -> " and then transfered to the main..."
  • he was called to active duty due to the Korean War: suggest making it clear that he didn't see combat here
  • aircraft carrier is overlinked in the Navy service section
  • He went to the Mediterranean: --> " He deployed to the Mediterranean"?
  • Space rendezvous and McDonnell Aircraft are overlinked
  • "File:Space Mirror Memorial Robert Henry Lawrence, Jr., 1966 NASA T-38 crash.JPG": suggest uploading a new version that is focused on See's name, to make it more focused (and larger/more legible)
    • I could have sworn someone specifically requested that I do not do that, but I cannot find any evidence of that, so I am probably just going mad. Cropped it as you suggested. Kees08 (Talk)
  • He underwent preliminary evaluations, medical tests, and interviews during the selection process.[16] See was selected to be in NASA's second group of astronauts, known as The New Nine. --> "After undergoin preliminary evaluations, medical tests, and interviews during the selection process,[16] See was selected to be in NASA's second group of astronauts, known as The New Nine."?
  • A problem that was assigned to See was determining the best --> "See was tasked with determining the best..."
  • The decision was between landing --> "The choice was between landing"?
  • See was announced as the backup --> "See was selected as the backup"?
    • He would have been selected prior to the announcement, so there are two discrete dates involved in the process (when he is informed, and when the public is informed). Think it should probably be left as-is. Kees08 (Talk)
  • See was a Capsule communicator (CAPCOM) --> "See was a capsule communicator (CAPCOM)" (capitalisation)
  • were in line for prime crew --> "were scheduled to serve as the prime crew"?
    • They technically were not scheduled; in line is the best phrase I can think of. Deke had a normal rotation, and people could (usually) deduce who the primary crews would be based on past backup crews. So they were in line to be on Gemini 8 but not ultimately scheduled for it. Kees08 (Talk) 07:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in October 1965 See --> probably best not to start a sentence with the word "But"
  • second approach, probably due: you haven't explained the fact that they missed their first approach yet. To be honest, I think the paragraph needs to be reworked a bit. For instance, maybe mention the reason for the trip first, then the accident.
  • he flew too slow - a fatal: replace the hyphen with an endash
  • He was honored by Highland Park High School in 2010 one of the recipients: missing something. Perhaps, "He was honored by Highland Park High School in 2010 as one of the recipients..."?
  • in the References, Burgess is overlinked
  • "p. 37–38" --> "pp. 37–38"
    • Argh, someday I will catch all these before review. Got it. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "1955-56" --> should have an endash
  • is Find a Grave considered reliable? It appears to be user generated content, so probably shouldn't be linked to in the External links
    • It is not. I always want to remove it but hesitate since it has its own template, I assume that I should not. But happy to remove it! Thanks. Kees08 (Talk)
  • the sources look ok to me, but I wasn't sure if www.americaspace.com was a WP:RS. Can you tell me anything about its authors/editors etc?

@Hawkeye7: Could you take care of the ROTC and Korean War comments from both Balon Greyjoy and AustralianRupert? Kees08 (Talk) 21:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Kees08: I view of the limitations of the sources, I would not recommend nominating this article for FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Adam Cuerden (passed, but with additional comments)

[edit]

I hope you won't mind if I just cover one aspect. I do support the A-class promotion, but as I only feel qualified to review one aspect, weight that accordingly.

There's five images. Three are NASA images, one a navy image, and of the type where there is clearly no reason to doubt their attribution in the slightest. The last, File:Space Mirror Memorial Robert Henry Lawrence, Jr., 1966 NASA T-38 crash (cropped).JPG is the only one there might be any issues with. However, in the end, the space mirror memorial - while it may have more structure if zoomed out more - is basically flat surfaces with names on it, at least as photographed. I'd say the underlying work, as photographed here, falls below the threshhold of originality easily, so it should be perfectly fine. (It may also count as a US federal government work, and thus immune to copyright a second way, but I can't say on that account.) This passes the image review, and is fine for promotion on that account.

Aesthetically, a more consistant pattern of image positioning left and right, and giving more width to landscape orientation images than portrait might improve presentation.


It also feels odd that File:Gemini_5_Elliot_See_water_egress_training.jpg, one of the best images on the page - it's a featured picture - is also the only one to be given the "upright" tag, which shrinks its width to 70% of the width of substantially lower quality images like File:LT(jg) Elliot See.jpg. It's an odd decision. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 17:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might have added it on my smaller screen and it looked worse without the upright tag, I do not remember. I am on a larger screen now and it looks fine with the upright tag removed, so I have done that. Is your give more width suggestion to widen the photo of him and Bassett? I used upright on the lower quality image so it stands out less. Let me know if that addressed your concerns. There is only one other photo I could move to the other side to fit your suggestion (the Space Mirror Memorial one), and it would protrude into the reference section if I did, so I will probably leave it unless that is not what you are suggesting. As a sidenote, I was disappointed at the lack of photos of See in general, and have been looking for additional options for awhile now. Hopefully something comes up. Kees08 (Talk) 20:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the general advice is to try to alternate, or have them all on the right. See what you think of it as it is now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 00:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is some advice as well in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Horizontal_placement that says It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. I have heard to alternate them before but for some reason am struggling to find the policy on it. Not sure if alternating the images or having the subject look toward the text is more preferable (I originally opted for the latter, but am pretty indifferent). Kees08 (Talk) 00:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Look towards the text" thing is more applicable to things like File:Marie-Aimée Roger-Miclos - Photograph A from the Album Reutlinger de portraits divers, vol. 21.jpg than the very slight turns here. Of course, you realise all of this is that little bit of extra polishing up, not something that's at all required for A-level or even FA level, right? I really don't want to overstate my comments. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 01:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One other question: The caption of the second image reads "Lieutenant (jg) Elliot See, USNR, during his tour of duty on USS Boxer" - what does (jg) mean, and can this be shortened a bit? Wouldt "See during his tour of duty on USS Boxer" cover it equally well, with the other information covered in the text? I'm generally of the philosophy that image captions should only include information needed to identify and explain that image. Simple portraits should have simple descriptions. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 00:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(jg) stands for "junior grade". Lieutenant (junior grade). It's equivalent to a lieutenant in tyhe Army. Give the interest, I've decided to link it. Space is not a problem here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by TomStar81

[edit]

@Kees08 and Hawkeye7: The reflink tool shows 5 links to be questionable - two blue, three red. The blue links appear to work ok, but it'd be a good idea to verify that they are going where you wanted them to go. The Red links, however, are 100% dead, and since those links go to information in the reference section I can't pass this review until this matter is resolved. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the tool is currently down, but I accidentally rescued some sources with another tool. I clicked through all the links and they seemed to go where they should; I will try to use the tool again tomorrow (the page said there are hardware issues ongoing). Kees08 (Talk) 06:24, 16 July 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/Elliot_See&oldid=906616625"