Talk:Lisa Nowak/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 12:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hawkeye7! I'll be doing this GA review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 My apologies that this review is probably taking longer than you would like. I haven't forgotten about it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Nice work on this article. I have finished my initial review of this article and placed it on hold. Let me know if you have any questions; looking forward to getting this review done soon! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Pictures[edit]

The captions for the pictures, if necessary, should identify Nowak as the subject. While they don't need to be complete sentences per MOS:CAPTION, they should have a subject in the sentence (e.g. "Nowak as an Annapolis cadet" vs. "As an Annapolis cadet"
I don't see that in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, but changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures of the Corsair and the Hornet is excessive, as Nowak is (presumably) not in either of the jets when the pictures were taken.
The picture of the Corsair is important; the nature of the aircraft an its mission would not be known to all readers, and the image is of a Corsair of the VAQ-34. There is no requirement that the subject be in every image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose/MOS[edit]

Before diving into the specifics here, my first pass reaction is that there's a lot of detail here, some of which is too broad for an article about a specific person, such as the introduction of women into the service academies, 1996 astronaut class information, and adultery proceedings under the UCMJ. It's obviously well researched, but it goes beyond the scope of Nowak and her life and career. Additionally, there are some sections that read as WP:EDITORIAL, such as "Despite having a nine-month-old baby, she excelled at the demanding course" and "they embarked on a passionate sexual affair that they took pains to conceal."

Lead[edit]

I rephrased the sentence about her college graduation, and removed that the Naval Academy is in Annapolis. It's an extraneous detail for the lead section.
We've been through this before with other articles. The problem is that "Annapolis" is widely known, but the term "United States Naval Academy" is not, and use of the latter by itself caused confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the last time we discussed it was in the main body of the article, not the lead. I think Annapolis should be left in the "Early life and education" section, but I don't think it needs to be in the lead.

Early life and education[edit]

I'm assuming Nowak's sisters are still alive, so I rephrased their sentence to get away from saying she "had" two younger sisters. Additionally, I combined that sentence with the following sentence about growing up in Rockville, as they were otherwise two short statements. I removed the part about the two story brick house, as that was an extraneous detail.
Yes, they are; article is written in the past tense. The change is fine. The bit about the house was to inform the reader of the family's social status. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "as a six-year-old," as her birth date is mentioned earlier in the paragraph, and the sentence says when the moon landing was. But I think "In 1969" could also be replaced by "As a six-year-old," but having them both is redundant.
Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article delves way too deeply into the integration of the service academies. While sexism surely existed when Nowak was a student (and still does today), there aren't any anecdotes about how it affected her, and it's not like she was in the inaugural class that allowed woman midshipmen. The only mention I would make of the gender disparity is to mention that the Naval Academy began admitting women in 1976, and leave the sentence "By the time Caputo entered as a plebe in 1981, there were women in every one of the four classes at the academy, but they were still a minority, making up only 6 percent of the student body." Thoughts?
Re-worded as suggested. The problem here is that younger readers will not realise how bad things were. The fact that women were only admitted for the first time in 1976 was certainly a factor in her parents disapproval and apprehension. (Today women make up 27 per cent of the classes.) The article does contain one anecdote, about the professors informing the class that women belonged there. Nowak was a bit lucky in that there was apparently less harassment in her 14th Company than some of the others. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, did Novak say that she experienced professors saying they don't believe that women belonged, or was this just something that occurred at the time? I have no doubts that she and other women received sexist treatment, but the way the article currently reads is that it happened at the time, but no indication that it happened to Nowak.
We don't have an oral history for Nowak. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navy career[edit]

Clarify what a secondment is. According to the secondment page, it seems to be an exchange officer, but (to the best of my knowledge) it's not a term used in the US military today.
It is commonly used in the US military. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The part about the combat roles is pretty confusing, as it implies that she wasn't able to become an aviator because she's a woman, but there's no mention of a waiver process or the like, so it appears she became one following the traditional means. I would take it out unless Nowak had to undergo some extra processes to become an aviator.
She didn't become an aviator; she became a Naval Flight Officer. The restriction on duties was set in 1948 legislation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify what her job was. As far as I can tell, she was an NFO, not a pilot, but the section discusses her pilot training. Additionally, later in the paragraph it section it says that she flew the plane, not flew on the plane, again implying that she is a pilot.
She was an NFO, but at Patuxent she flew aircraft as a test pilot. I'm not sure why she applied

Aviator. In the Navy a pilot is someone who guides ships. She was trained to fly aircraft, but not allowed to do so. VAQ-34 had a large number of women who flew as
I'm a little confused about this then: "Caputo's pilot training continued at Corry Station, where she learned to fly the Grumman EA-6 Prowler, an electronic warfare aircraft." Just to be clear, she was just going through pilot training (using it in the sense that it means flying a plane"). Also, did she fly as a test pilot, or as a test engineer once she went to TPS? That latter makes much more sense.
Women were not allowed to fly combat aircraft, although they could be trained. As it happened, three women in VAQ-34 were to first to do so. The restriction was lifted while Nowak was at Patuxent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a little more research into this, and have tweaked the text to make it clear that she was always a naval flight officer and not a pilot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "and was awarded her wings of gold" as that is Navy-specific jargon, and is synonymous with her being designated as an NFO.
I removed the sentence discussing the Supreme Court ruling on the last name change upon marriage, as that is common practice in the US, so it's not like the Nowaks were unusual in doing it. For readers unfamiliar with the practice, I linked to the page about it.
I removed "notoriously temperamental" as that comes across as colloquial.
I removed "supporting the U.S. Pacific Fleet in small and large-scale exercises with jamming and missile profiles" as that's just the generic job description of the Electronic Agressor Squadron, and none of her other platforms discussed include that type of information.
What were her degrees from Naval Postgrad? I'm assuming they're both Masters of Science, but it reads as if only the first one is, and the level of the second degree is unknown. Also, just to confirm, were her degrees titled "aeronautical engineering" and "aeronautical and astronautical engineering" or is that an accidental duplication on the second one.
All the sources say two degrees, but the second one is unspecified. I dug up her thesis, but it is for the MS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "This was a major achievement." per WP:PUFF
I removed "Despite having a nine-month-old baby, she excelled at the demanding course." per WP:PUFF and WP:EDITORIAL. It's not really clear how she excelled, other than that she passed.

It is the recollection of her fellow course members. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "Women were still excluded from combat roles, although that would change in 1993 in the wake of the Tailhook scandal, which provided further proof, if any were needed, of the continuing resentment towards women in the Navy." This sentence falls outside of the description of Nowak and her career. Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer is not a combat position, and if it was, the changes as a result of the Tailhook scandal hadn't occurred by the time Nowak attended TPS.
I combined the (now shorter) paragraph about attending TPS and the subsequent paragraph.

Astronaut training[edit]

There's a lot of extra information about the 1996 Astronaut Class. My take would be to reduce it to when they were selected, how many of them there were, and when they started training.
On other articles reviewers have asked for more details about training. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. For the sake of keeping this section chronological I removed the sentence about classmates that never flew or died.
Thoughts on removing the cost of their house? It seems like an unnecessary detail.
Removed. I wanted to indicate that they had a a mortgage. It's hard to compare prices though. Many astronaut accounts bemoan the high cost of houses in Texas. But it depends a lot on where you come from. The median house price in the Baltimore area today is $114,300 compared to $185,500 in Houston. If someone offers you a job, you need at least a 10% pay rise just to break even. On the other hand, if you move from one of the most expensive cities, you'll want to buy a house in Houston worth $500,000 or so to avoid being hit with capital gains tax. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What platform did her husband fly on? I think that should be included, but a Google search didn't bring anything up.
He flew the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. Added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the description of the gold astronaut pin and the awarding of the silver astronaut pin. Like the "wings of gold" clause, it's synonymous with graduating training.

I combined the sentences about her decision to become pregnant in 2001. Stating that she wanted it in spite of the effect on her careers implies that she may not have normally considered it.
I consolidated the sentences about raising the children and the OEF deployment. To clarify, was Richard actually recalled to active duty or did he just deploy as a reservist?
He was recalled to active duty and sent to Afghanistan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the affair sentence, as the use of "passionate" is WP:PUFF, and I think Nowak's later actions indicate that the affair wasn't purely sexual.

I restored that bit that she became "effectively" a single mother. She was still doing better than most single mothers, insofar as she still had access to two incomes. In the nineties, "my wife has found a great job in Houston" would have been a good enough excuse to be let out. It wouldn't have cut any ice in the noughties though. The Nowaks were fortunate in that the navy didn't recall both of them. That happened to many couples. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the Columbia disaster section. Since Nowak hadn't been a backup to the STS-107 crew, I felt that it was excessive to include the comparison with Barbara Morgan. Furthermore, I removed the William McCool description since it doesn't seem like he and Nowak were especially friends (according to this article) and they weren't in the same Naval Academy class.
It makes the text very awkward. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of the quote by Laurel Clark's husband. While it's clear that Nowak worked hard as the casualty assistance officer, I think the quote is excessively detailed and long and could be paraphrased to say that she managed Clark's finances as well as took care of their son. Thoughts?
Deleted then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was Richard aware of the affair at the time that Oefelien's wife found out?
Sources don't say. Probably not at that time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the info about how adultery wasn't typically brought against officers. As they weren't charged with it, I don't think it's relevant to go into the details about how they may have been charged. However, I left in the UCMJ adultery information, as I think it's important for readers unfamiliar with the American UCMJ to know that adultery is illegal, not just discouraged.
But they were charged, and convicted too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space flight[edit]

Is there any reason you didn't choose to title this sub-section "STS-121?" I feel like that's what is typically seen on other astronaut pages, but they have usually flown in space multiple times.
Never thought of it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the STS-121 crew selection down to the this subsection. It's a little confusing that the previous section seems to arbitrarily mention the crew selection for it, and then this section states that they were added. Additionally, why were Nowak and Wilson late adds?
Don't know why. The text is now out of chronological order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it makes the section out of chronological order, but this groups all of the STS-121 information together, as opposed to a seemingly unrelated fact about the crew assignment earlier in the section. I understand both sides of the coin, but my opinion is that this makes more sense.
What were the main problems that caused the STS-121 slip from May to July?
They were still have trouble with bits of foam falling off - the very thing that destroyed Columbia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consolidated the information about the pre-launch reception, as that was a lot of text listing the various guests there.
Is there more information about the actual launch day? It doesn't read well that a lot of info is given about one of the days where they didn't launch, and then the pre-launch info for the actual launch day is glossed over.
There's plenty of information about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It just says that they launched that day, while the July 1st attempt has all of the pre-launch information. I'm assuming the pre-launch prep is standardized for all attempts, but it seems odd that the info is given on a failed attempt but not the actual launch day.
I thought it would be repetitious. Also, several rituals and tasks were carried out only the first time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "donned their orange space suits" to keep the sentence from being too long. As that's just a standard part of getting prepped for a launch, much like their final physical exams and the ride over on the Astronaut transfer van.
I removed the information about STS-121 MECO. It's an excessive detail about how the STS-121 launch went as planned.
The main point was the children receiving gifts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I combined the sentences about the debris coming off the external tank; the section already describes ET debris as the cause for the STS-107 disaster.
I removed the sentences about the RMS manipulation being a delicate operation that required a lot of training. Arguably all parts of the mission required an attention to detail and a lot of training.
I wanted to counter the notion that the women were given the easiest tasks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened the sentence that described Nowak carrying out her tasks, as all of the mission tasks were presumably carried out with attention to detail.
I would remove the "for which she had not trained" part of the sentence, as I'm assuming the message of the sentence is that she wasn't willing to assist with other tasks. Saying that she wouldn't participate in things she had not trained makes it seem like that's the responsible choice.
You can definitely see it that way. Without that it seems that she had no reason. It's her Asperger's cutting in; had mission control made it clear that it was okay she would have done it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Were Nowak and Wilson considered for the STS-121 EVAs? The article implies that they were, but then says that budget cuts in the 1990s resulted in no small sizes, which makes it sound like there wouldn't have been any in their size by the time of the 2006 mission.
Correct. They were not trained for EVAs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of the wording about how the ISS RMS was difficult to operate. I left in the physical description of it, but like the previous description of the shuttle RMS, it's clear that using it is a delicate operation.

Homecoming[edit]

I removed the sentence about Shipman visiting KSC frequently; presumably their relationship was happening away from both of their workplaces.
No, it was at KSC. Shipman also payed Oefelein a conjugal visit while he was in isolation for his space flight and only allowed one visitor. (He had previously done this for Nowak on STS-121.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did Shipman and Oefelein stop training for the MS 150 after Shipman was annoyed about the bike? Was this an ongoing issue? It seems pretty mundane that Shipman was annoyed that Oefelein was maintaining contact with an ex.
Time ran out before that occurred. Shipman was annoyed that Oefelein was continuing to fly with Nowak, exercise with Nowak, and cycle with Nowak. Also, he called Shipman "Lisa" once while they were having sex. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Kelly (it's not clear if it's Scott or Mark) telling Nowak about the decision to have Wilson fly on STS-123 over her?
Mark. They do look a lot alike. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What was his role in deciding that? I understand that he was there previous mission commander on STS-121 and probably had some input, but it's not like he was the chief of the Astronaut Office or the STS-123 commander?
The article doesn't say he decided; it says that he was the one who informed Nowak. I don't know why the task was delegated to him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions[edit]

I removed the sentences about the public reactions, as the sentences are largely unattributed and come across as WP:WEASEL. I think the NASA reviews indicate that there was concern over the mental health of the astronauts, but the cited articles expressing the opinions referenced don't indicate that they're widely held opinions instead of the opinions of the journalists or a person interviewed for the article.
There was no concern over the mental health of astronauts before this blew up. Note also the little side comment about giving the flight surgeons psychiatric training, of which they had none. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the drinking and flying allegations are obviously a concern for NASA, there's a lot of text about it when it is only tangentially related to Nowak's case. As far as I can tell, there's no concern that Nowak was one of the offenders. It seems like it could be pared down. Additionally, is there more information about the general findings of the report, other than the alcohol concerns?
I agree. I have removed this part. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can read the report [1]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I paraphrased the Santy quote. The article makes it seem like Shanty's quote is a dissenting opinion from the report. Also, it is relatively unrelated to the concerns over alcohol use, but reads like it is a response to it. If it's left in, it should be with the general mental health findings of the reports.
Santy is another long story. The quote predated the report. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After NASA[edit]

I paraphrased the Coats quote, since most of its information (returning to the Navy, getting reduced in rank, having a seemingly normal life until her drive to FLorida) was covered previously in the article. I figured it's most important info is that Nowak struggled post-Navy

In popular culture[edit]

I shortened the description of the movie Rough Night; it has a longer description than the movie Lucy in the Sky.

Refs[edit]

Giving the links a spot check, I found one dead link ("Ex-Astronaut Lisa Nowak Pleads Guilty to Burglary, Battery but Gets Light Sentence" from Fox News) and a reference ("Court schedules hearing in Nowak case") that listed no authors or publisher, but the linked article had that information (I added that). I would check the references that you didn't personally add.
I ran ran checklinks over the article and fixed links that were broken. For some reason it missed that Fox News reference, but I've added an archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently working through the remaining references that do not have any authors listed to make sure the reference does not, as several that I checked needed to have that added. Additionally, "Ex-Astronaut Lisa Nowak May be Dishonorably Discharged from Navy" was a dead link with no archive, so I'm checking links as well.
That link works fine for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The archive link for "New Documents Paint Portrait of Fallen NASA Astronaut" is invalid.
It doesn't have an archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are still references missing information (date and authors are the notable fields)
"Astronaut Nabbed In Bizarre Kidnap Plot" is a dead link
Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Airport Incident and After NASA sections suffer from WP:OVERCITE. Regarding internet references in addition to printed references, I don't have the Moore book to verify what facts it does and doesn't have, but I assume it has comprehensive information about the court proceedings and aftermath, but its reference is coupled with other sources.
It is not comprehensive, so it only adds minor details unfortunately. Fanning is the superior source, but only covers the case up to 2007, so internet references carry the story from there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more I need to do? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks good. Currently working through the reference errors; once those get fixed I'll give it a final once-over. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished with the references, and passing the article. Nice work; looking forward to seeing it go for A/FA review. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]