Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 8/GA1

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

Reviewer: Footlessmouse (talk · contribs) 22:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I will start reviewing this article, it looks really nice from what I've read so far. I will leave a detailed review once I've read through over everything and checked all the references. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead is 3 paragraphs, is accessible, sums up the critical points of the article, and avoids double citing with material found in the body. No layout problems or violations, the lists used are appropriate as lists, are organized and referenced, no list violations. Certain words to watch are used, but in an appropriate manner. Prose is clear and there are no spelling or grammar errors remaining. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * turnitin shows no plagiarism. Reference and notes section follows MOS and the internal links all work. All sources are reliable all information is verifiable. No original research or synthesis.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article discusses all notable aspects without going into unnecessary detail. Importantly, the diversity of the team, its role as turning point in NASA recruitment, their honors, and the Challenger deaths. As well as a nice list of all the astronauts with relevant highlights and proper citations. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Encyclopedic tone and neutrality upheld throughout the article. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No history of edit wars, article is stable following massive expansion by Hawkeye7. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are all appropriate, all images not in the table have captions. Images in table do not need captions. All images are made by NASA and are copyright-free, with certain restrictions under applicable US laws. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Preliminaries (all complete)

 * Note: All images are tagged with NASA copyright status except two that should have been tagged. Please fix File:STS-7 Crew (18649126018).jpg with the license Template:PD-USGov-NASA. File:S78-35312 orig.jpg is marked as share-alike when I believe it should also be tagged with Template:PD-USGov-NASA. All other images are good and appropriate. Please correct those tags so that images will pass. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagged it with Template:PD-USGov-NASA Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Question: Do you have proof the PDF of Legacy of the 35 New Guys from the magazine Houston History is copyright free? We cannot link to external sources that infringe copyrights. I am retracting my plagiarism free check until this is sorted out. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no assertion that it is copyright free; it is used as a reference just like the other references. This issue was published jointly by NASA and the University of Houston. See As joint publisher, NASA has the right to carry it on its web site.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for equal opportunity at NASA

 * "before she even showed up for work on" => "prior to starting on". I don't think it rises to the level of breaking encyclopedic tone, but it could be better. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "with just four were in the top grades" => "while just four were in the top grades" - grammar Footlessmouse (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "while minorities were quite well represented" => drop the "quite". Footlessmouse (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "could be endlessly promoted without ever reaching management levels" => only 43 levels, so it is not endless, could you reword? Footlessmouse (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Fletcher took quick and decisive action: he fired Harris" - could you reword to say it shortly afterwards? This is a borderline tone violation and is unnecessary. You could also say immediately. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * " Senator William Proxmire grilled a hapless McConnell" => drop "a hapless" Footlessmouse (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Aides urged Fletcher to appear before the normally friendly" => drop "normally friendly" Footlessmouse (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for Recruitment

 * "By this time it had been nearly years" => fix this entire sentence please. It looks like someone meant to delete the first part when they added the second, but it is all messed up. Also, it omits the number of years. Not much of a suggestion, but I will put here. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added "ten". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph of Selection process, I think it might be a good idea to cut in half, there is a lot of figures in there and it might be easier to distance the pilots from specialist using two paragraphs. Also in the following paragraph, you might say "the 208 remaining applicants". Not necessary, only suggestions. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Split. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Second sentence of third paragraph under Selection process, it says "the latter" without listing two things, I think it used to be part of the previous paragraph. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it does: "... for interviews and medical tests. The latter were conducted ..." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Other

 * "had far more in common with their male counterparts that with the female population of the United states as a whole" in demographics. I believe that should be than. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Classroom training was given on a wide of wide variety " under Training remove "of wide" Footlessmouse (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "It was perhaps fitting that an astronomer would be involved in the deployment of these space-based telescopes" in Final missions I think this should be reworded for tone. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Spelling errors

 * practised and resited both in Equal employment opportunity at NASA also, Mormon should be capitalized. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * highlisted and Shutte under Nickname
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * mission.The and oin  under Training
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * realised under First missions
 * ✅ Hmmm spell checker wants to change it back.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * totalling  under Final missions
 * ✅ That one too.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This completes my review, it is now on hold pending the various changes. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking time to review. I believe I have addressed all your points. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Final thoughts
This was my first review and I asked a GA mentor, @Bibliomaniac15, to double check my work. The request is found and the response is found. The mentor made two edits to this article copy-editing it, the difference can be found. The mentor then agreed that it is a good article for GA and that they have no objections.

, it has come to my attention that you are Australian and that multiple of the "spelling and grammar" errors I had you fixed were not errors at all, but region differences. I should not have had you correct those as only consistency is required. I thank you for your graciousness in complying with the requests anyways. In the future, I will make sure to double check that before beginning. Thank you also for your exceptionally quick responses and for making this an easy review for me. Excellent job!! Footlessmouse (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review! The spelling corrections you asked for were fine; the article is supposed be in US English but my brain (and spell checker) don't always spot them. Cheers. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)