Talk:Gus Grissom/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this and copyedit as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning), and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Avoid single sentence paras as in the 2nd para of Project Gemini
 * ✅  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * 2nd para of Naming of the Molly Brown is uncited
 * ✅, can't believe how easily I found it this time. I looked before and could not.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * Avoid single sentence paras in Death section. Also some cites needed.
 * ✅, except for the burial one, I think it looks fine on its own, but I can be persuaded.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * ✅ with the citations as well, deleted the portions I could not find citations for, then blended the paragraphs so the flowed a little better.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * Also would it be worth putting in what his kids grew up to do? Is there a source for this? (like a legacy?)
 * I think per WP:BLP, since they are not notable themselves, we should not. I also removed their specific birth dates for the same reason.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * Fair enough - I just thought if any of them had gone into an industry and/or reflected publicly on their father or said it influenced what they'd done it'd be nice. Agree with removing birthdates. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of the prose in the first 3 sections or so comes across as a little stilted as there are a lot of shortish sentences. I can't really single out any one sentence as problematic but joining a few together might be good. But most of the article is a nice read. Nice job! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality: - looking back now I can't see anything actionable, so will leave that. Might be worth another set of prose eyes if heading to FAC.
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - nice read. Possible FAC in future...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I do plan on taking this to FAC as a part of my goal to get the Mercury 7 astronauts as a featured topic. I had the GOCE take a go at the article a few months ago, but I will go through it myself as well. I have a little work to do on the references to get them all in the same format as well. I have a couple of books on Grissom, I will see if there is anything notable his family said that should be included. It would be nice to have some quotations or something. I had classes in both Grissom and Chaffee Halls on my journey to becoming an aerospace engineer, so it was really neat to work on their articles and read books on them. Still more to read and work on until I get them to FAC. Thanks again for the review! If you have any sweeping comments on what the article needs to get to FAC, I would love to hear them. I have a couple of articles at A-class review, but have not taken any to FAC yet so I might be missing some big things. Thanks again!  Kees08  (Talk)   03:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, I guess some details that could be expanded are personal - inspiration etc. I also don't get a sense of what inspired him to try out for NASA. Stuff like that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)