Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 6/GA1

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

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 00:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. starsandwhales (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Though the introduction and selection sections make sense, there isn't really much of a transition between background and the following section. Yes it makes sense that NASA's plans couldn't be fulfilled because of funding, but it would be helpful to have a sentence or two explaining the dramatic shift.
 * ✅ I have expanded this into a second paragraph on the "Background" section.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is how the formatting of the references and notes goes. If you swap notes for references and references for sources that works. Notes are meant to be like footnotes.
 * ✅ It is correct. See MOS:NOTES: For a list of explanatory footnotes or shortened citation footnotes: "Notes", "Endnotes", or "Footnotes". For a list of full citations or general references: "References" or "Works cited".  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "But the Apollo 1 fire on January 27, 1967, had shaken faith in NASA, and the cost of the Vietnam War was inexorably rising. NASA's appropriation was cut to $4.59 billion, with AAP receiving only $122 million.[3]When the eleven new astronauts reported for duty on September 18, 1967, they were met by Shepard and Slayton." Don't start the sentence with but and spaces between sentences.
 * ✅ Added a space. And the idea that and must not begin a sentence, or even a paragraph, is an empty superstition. The same goes for but. Indeed either word can give unimprovably early warning of the sort of thing that is to follow. Kingsley Amis, The King's English (1997)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Chapman found they he really enjoyed flying, especially in the T-38. Musgrave and Allen topped their classes, and Chapman came second in his" Would make more sense if the two statements about Chapman were grouped together.
 * ✅ Good idea.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok everything else looks good! starsandwhales (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)