Template:Did you know nominations/Robert J. Cenker


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert J. Cenker

 * ...that RCA's only astronaut, civilian Bob Cenker, narrowly avoided catastrophe during his mission on Space Shuttle Columbia, which experienced several launch-pad aborts and almost exploded? Source: “Columbia’s launch attempt on 6 January turned out to be one of the most hazardous yet in the shuttle’s five-year operational history...” And referring to the 9 January launch abort, “pilot Charlie Bolden recalled… ‘It would have been catastrophic, because the engine would have exploded had we launched.’ ” --Ben Evans in Americaspace.com: “Mission 61C: The Original ‘Mission Impossible’ (Part 2)”
 * Comment: Article expanded from stub which had no references.
 * Comment: Article expanded from stub which had no references.

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Rp2006 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg GTG - expanded, referenced, neutral, no copyvio. I'd suggest hyperlink to SS Columbia in the hook. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the positive review. I request that a Columbia link not be added however. In fact adding any other links (like to RCA) would be a mistake. The reason is that if someone follows the Columbia link (or any other) from the hook to another article they will not see anything about the info I used in the hook. The Columbia article for example is a general article about that Space Shuttle. There is not even anything about Bob Cenker there, never mind anything about the narrowly averted explosion. If they are interested in details on Columbia, once they are reading the Cenker article, there are plenty of links not only to Columbia but other related items in the Cenker article, including the article for that specific shuttle mission, the Space Shuttle Program, NASA, RCA, etc. Thanks again! RobP (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The DYK claim here is specific to the mission, not this biography (which is currently graded B and has some issues that need to be addressed before reaching GA). With that in mind, I'd suggest that this DYK (and its a pretty good one) link to the mission article instead. The hook, that the mission "narrowly avoided catastrophe" needs to be toned down.  I could find only one engineer, Ben Evans in the self-published blog referenced in the article and in his book Space Shuttle Columbia ISBN 978-0-387-73972-4, who discribed the launch attempts this way. Clearly, there were issues in early launch attempts, but without some other source describing it in this manner, it feels like synthesis.  Removing the word "narrowly" would resolve this concern I think. -RadioFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As the primary author (and DYK nominator) let me say I disagree with the comments from RadioFan. First, regarding the "narrowly avoided catastrophe" hook. I do not know what they are talking about. This is substantiated by reference 11 of the article as follows: " “That would have been a bad day,” pilot Charlie Bolden recalled, grimly, years later. “It would have been catastrophic, because the engine would have exploded, had we launched.” "  In other words, if a sensor had not indicated the problem, they would have launched... and boom. That sounds like it was narrowly averted to me. Second, regarding the comment "I'd suggest that this DYK... link to the mission article instead."  Huh? The entire point of a DYK is to highlight the article that was nominated, in this case the one I improved from a stub, the Cenker article. I added this historical information to THIS article as it was Cenker's flight and he could have died. The mission article does not even discuss this near catastrophe. I do not understand this comment at all! RobP (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The focus of this DYK can be made better. This quote you mention is specific to the mission and would make a great hook for a DYK about the mission but this nomination is for the article on a civilian astronaut who flew once. A hook more specific to Cenker would be more appropriate.  He's most notable as the last civilian to fly on the space shuttle before NASA suspended including civilian crew in shuttle missions for many years.  Perhaps that could be worked into a suitable hook. --RadioFan (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Better is subjective, and (no surprise) I disagree with this suggestion for changing the hook. As it stands, it is accurate (sourced in the article), has Cenker as the primary subject specifying who he is (stating right off that he was a civilian and RCA's only astronaut) and points out that his life was in worse jeopardy than realized at the time. The way it is, the article will get much more traffic that if the hook were watered down per this suggestion. And getting traffic to the article IS the point of a DYK. RobP (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You've raised some interesting points, but they are not very relevant here, because the article about the mission is not eligible for DYK. Do you have a specific objection to the hook based on the DYK rules? Otherwise, this should move forward. Vanamonde (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Typically DYK hooks are closely associated with the articles they are featuring. If consensus is that this is not necessary, by all means, move ahead.RadioFan (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your review appears incomplete. You didn't check the hook against the criteria, whether the QPQ of the nominator was done, and whether the proposed image is within policy. Or maybe you check them but did not include them in your comment. Please be explicit because it's the reviewer's responsibility to check these and stating explicitly makes the promoter's task easier. HaEr48 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One click shows the image is fine (PD). Second shows that this is the creator's second DYK, so s/he is not required to do a QPQ review of another DYK yet. Hope that helps. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Restoring tick based on review by . Vanamonde (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)