Talk:Scott Carpenter/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 09:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recently dug out my copy of For Spacious Skies to improve this article; not too broken up about someone else doing the leg work instead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where it is or when it was, but a while back, Kees08 proposed that the Mercury 7 astronauts be improved to a Good Topic. I got the ball rolling by taking Alan Shepard to FAC, and volunteered to do Scott Carpenter, but got sidetracked, and only recently got around to it. Meanwhile, I helped Kees08 with John Glenn, by far the most difficult assignment, and he also brought Gus Grissom to GA. You did Wally Schirra (which I reviewed). I've now started on overhauling Gordon Cooper, but we are still looking for someone for Deke Slayton, so if you're looking for something... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do have my copy of Deke! that I've been meaning to read. Looks like my plans to work on the articles on the Space Shuttle-era need to be sidelined! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more ambitious than the Mercury 7, but Adopt an astronaut is the page. Funny Hawkeye mentioned you writing Slayton's article, I was considering asking you to do the same thing. Let me know if you need any help. Kees08 (Talk) 05:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's settled then. I have to read his book first, so it'll be at least a week before I get to his page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lo and behold, while going through my books to find Deke!, I found that I also have Moon Shot and We Seven to use as source material. Alcohol and Amazon used books are a dangerous combination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
As mentioned below, I think this section should be expanded to include more information about Carpenter's life

Why did you put his age info and Navy rank in separate parentheses?

Early life
Personal preference, but I would remove "his wife" from the first section, and just state the Carpenter was the son of Marion and Florence.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was "Toye" a nickname for Carpenter's mother? Normally you see the name of the mother and then the maiden name in parentheses. Additionally, according to the archived copy of scottcarpenter.com, Carpenter's mother's last name was also Carpenter.
Y Her maiden name was Noxon. The custom in the early 20th century American was for wives to be known by their husband's names, so Florence Kelso Noxon became Mrs Marion Carpenter, and would be referred to as such all all formal setting, including documents and newspapers. Within family circles, this would be confusing, so women were normally referred to by nicknames. Tried to clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unnecessary to say that Carpenter moved with his family in 1925, as it's not like he had much say in the matter. Also, it says that it was parent (singular), is that a typo or did both parents go to New York?
Y Typo. Corrected. Both parents went to New York. I realise that he didn't have any say in the matter, but the point is that he moved to New York, and this is why. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted "his" before "father" in the final sentence of the first paragraph.

Personal preference, but I would remove the sentence about mountain air to aid in tuberculosis recovery.
No, I think it's important. Many people moved to the west for this reason in the second half of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "eventually" from the next sentence, as that has a sense of finality to it, but she did recover and left the sanatorium.
Y No, she never fully recovered. Tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What year did Carpenter's parents get divorced? There are two years listed in the previous sentence, and it is not specific which year is being referred to.
Y In 1945. Split the sentence to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did Carpenter's father remain in New York the entire time, and that was why Carpenter was raised by his grandparents? If so, I think that should be explained.
Yes, his father remained in New York. He visited a few times. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who claimed that Aurora Street was the inspiration for the name Aurora 7? That info should be included, vs. a more vague statement of it being claimed.
My apologies if that was unclear; my point is that this doesn't say who claimed the street name was the reason the spacecraft was named Aurora 7. Was it something claimed by Life magazine while they were doing profiles on Carpenter, or was it just some speculation by some author writing about Carpenter.

Y Its in the Video, Carpenter says "people in Boulder said". Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naval service
The first sentence is a bit of a run on. I would remove "in Boulder," as many Americans were affected by the attack, not just people in his hometown. Additionally, I would remove how the US entered World War II, and just state that Carpenter was inspired to join the Navy.
The reason is that while you and I know when World War II was, many readers will not. So it is a seque, and helps explain why he suddenly went to join up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did Carpenter complete any military service while in the V-5 program? It just states that he joined it, and then was subsequently accepted into the V-12 program.
Y No. Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would shorten the sentence about the creation of the V-12 program, something like "In 1943, the Navy created the V-12 Navy College Training Program to allow future naval aviators to attend college until their service was required."
I don't think that would make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nitpicking here, but I would remove "and receive an overseas assignment," as I think its sufficient to say that World War II ended, and he was released. Additionally, overseas assignment implies being stationed abroad instead of deploying (at least in my mind).
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a space after a comma at the start of the third paragraph.

Is it necessary to say that Carpenter visited his father in New York? Did he rarely see him?
He rarely saw him, but otherwise the reader might puzzle over him leaving the USAAF in September and not returning to Boulder until November. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did he miss the final exam for his class?
Y A washed-out bridge. Added. Later people demanded to know how not one but two of the Mercury 7 managed to sneak through without a college degree. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the part about the bookstore for meeting Rene, as the sentence as it stands is a run-on.
Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a double comma

Why did Carpenter have to attend flight training twice? I understand that he had a break in service between his time as a V-12 Cadet and when he later commissioned, but it seems like he still completed his flight training during his first stint in the Navy.
Only primary flight training. He hadn't yet earned his wings. There is no indication that he got any credits. He just took the same flight training as everyone else. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would combine the two sentences about the advanced training, and shorten it. My take is: "Despite aspiring to fly in jet aircraft, Carpenter chose to fly in the safer multi-engine patrol aircraft; he completed his advanced training on the PB4Y-2 Privateer at NAS Corpus Christi."
But that does not explain his motivation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that stating it multi-engine is the safer option demonstrates Carpenter's motivation, as his continued survival encompasses his duties as a husband and father.

"Fleet Airborne Electronics Training School, San Diego, California" I would state the the school was in San Diego, as it is not a base/location of its own.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"During his first tour of duty, on his first deployment," I would just put this as his first deployment, as the tour of duty part (which I'm assuming you mean is his first operational assignment to Hawaii) is understood.
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would start the next sentence with "On his second deployment, Carpenter was based out of Naval Air Facility Adak, Alaska..." It's repetitive to the previous sentence, but I think it reads better than beginning a sentence with "Forward deployed"
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would either remove the rank entirely from the third deployment sentence, or abbreviate it (my vote is to remove it, as ensign, LT jg, and LT aren't advanced or significant ranks).
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The third deployment sentence should state what he was doing on it. Also, it's redundant to say that he was based with his squadron on his deployment.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the relationship with Commander Howard to General Howard, as it's an extraneous detail, since Commander Howard had a small (but important) role in Carpenter's career.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would reword the sentence about the aircraft he flew at TPS, as it comes across as he flew aircraft and jets, not aircraft including jets.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He remained at Patuxent River, not Patuxent (I'm assuming he stayed at or near the base). Patuxent, Maryland is a small town about 30 miles closer to Washington D.C. than NAS Patuxent River.
He lived with his family in Kearsarge Street in Patuxent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using Google Maps, I couldn't find a Kearsarge Street in either Patuxent or Patuxent River. I'll defer to your judgement, but I think it currently looks like an abbreviated way of referring to NAS Patuxent River by just writing "Patuxent," and should either say "Patuxent, Maryland" or "NAS Patuxent River."
I found it. It is in Lexington Park, Maryland, where Patuxent River NAS is located. I think Stoever uses "Patuxent" for the NAS vicinity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Now a lieutenant, Carpenter attended the Navy Line School in Monterey, California for ten months, and the Naval Air Intelligence School at NAS Anacostia near Washington D.C., for an additional eight months in 1957 and 1958." As mentioned below, I would reword this sentence due to similarities to its source material. Additionally, NAS Anacostia (now Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling) is in Washington D.C., not near it. Additionally, I don't know Carpenter's dates of rank, but he likely became a lieutenant in 1954, and this sentence makes it seem like he became one right before attending these schools.
Y Re-worded. An officer would normally be promoted soon before or after attending the line school. I remember driving down the Anacostia Freeway to get there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Were you stationed/attending school there? I just completed a short assignment at JBAB; I loved my time in DC.
Just attending a seminar on Naval history. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would change "PPC (patrol plane commander)" to "patrol plane commander" and only include the acronym in parentheses if it is used later in the article. The tense in the third deployment sentence isn't consistent, and it should have another comma. My take is "For his third deployment, Carpenter was designated as a patrol plane commander, and flew missions off the Chinese coast from out of Guam."

NASA career
Mercury Seven
It should read "shattered American confidence in their technological superiority"

I would reword the part about Eisenhower launching the Space Race, as it makes it sound like some sort of event that America started vs. a continued competition between the two super powers. My take is to combine it with the next sentence. "In response, President Dwight D. Eisenhower established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established on October 1, 1958, as a civilian agency to develop space technology."

I would similarly combine the final two sentences, as the current version has it read like a story. My take is "Project Mercury was publicly announced on December 17, 1958, with the goal of launching a man into orbit, returning him safely to Earth, and evaluating his capabilities in space."
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would combine and shorten the two paragraphs about the candidate selection, as the details about each round of selection seems like an extraneous detail about Carpenter. Additionally, some comments for the paragraphs:
I would remove the part about getting permission from Eisenhower. While I don't know much about the story, getting permission makes it sound like it was some sort of struggle to convince Eisenhower to release military test pilots.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can leave out the part of the 508 records being reviewed, and just mention that NASA selected 110 possible candidates, and then list the requirements.
I want to keep this, as Carpenter should have been one of those excluded at this stage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would rephrase the sentence about Carpenter's lack of a bachelor's degree. I think it's a good detail to include, but I don't like anthropomorphizing the Navy, in saying that it assumed he had a degree. I would say something to the effect of "Carpenter was assumed to have met the criteria for selection, as the DPP was restricted to those with a bachelor's degree."
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would combine and shorten the sentences about the different numbers of individuals, number eliminated for various reasons, etc. These are important details on a page about the Mercury Seven, but I think they can be left out on Carptenter's page.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the third paragraph comes across as editorialized. I would shorten it, and remove the word "just." My take is "NASA decided to select six astronauts."
Y Reduced. My only concern is that in the end they chose seven, not six. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the test paragraph comes across as a story vs. an encylcopedic entry. My take is "The candidates were physically and psychologically tested at the Lovelace Clinic and the Wright Aerospace Medical Laboratory."

Change "smoke a pack of camel a day" to either "smoke a pack of cigarettes a day" or "smoke a pack of Camel cigarettes a day" (my vote is for the first option, as I don't think the brand is a relevant detail)
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little confusing how the article says six Mercury astronauts would be selected, and then states that Carpenter would be one of seven selected.

I would shorten the paragraph on Carpenter's selection. My recommendations are:
I would consolidate the first two sentences "While Carpenter was aboard the Hornet on April 3, 1959, NASA's Charles J. Donlan called his home to inform him of his selection."

I would remove "quayside" from third sentence. I don't think it is a very common word, and I think just saying that he returned the call to Donlan from a payphone.
I think it's better, in view of the captain not releasing him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on using "dockside" instead? From an American English perspective, that is a much more common word.

I would either shorten or remove the final sentence. It's vague to say that the captain was no impressed, and I think it makes more sense to just say that, initially, he wouldn't release him for astronaut duty. Additionally, it refers to Burke, but there is no other mention of him in the article. If you decide to keep it, are there any more details, such as was this a prolonged fight between Carpenter's Navy leadership and NASA?
Burke was mentioned was in one of the bits you asked to be removed. He informed the candidates that Project Mercury had his full support. And, when it came to the crunch, his word was good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What was the extent of the disagreement? It seems like Adm Burke should be able to overrule a ship's captain with no ifs, ands, or buts, so how much of an issue was this?

I disagree with keeping this sentence, but if you do, I would remove "was not so impressed," and just leave it as the captain did not release Carpenter until convinced by Adm Burke.
Y Deleted. Burke spoke to the aviators. He didn't put out an ALLNAV. Hornet's skipper was right to protest the loss of a key officer just when the ship was about to set sail on a deployment; but NASA had already ensured that Burke was on side. None of the other members of the Mercury 7 said that their CO tried to stop them, although Cooper said that his, BG Marcus F. Cooper (no relation) advised everyone not to volunteer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be "The Hornet's skipper"
Aaargh. There was this long argument about whether to put "the" in front of ship names. For consistency, we decided to leave them out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, just wanted to make sure that it wasn't a typo.

The final paragraph of the section contains a lot of details that are extraneous to Carpenter's story. As this section is about the Mercury 7, I would just add their announcement to the end of the previous paragraph, and remove the details about the Atlas launch failure.
I like the Atlas launch failure. It emphasises an important point about Project Mercury: Our rockets always blow up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury-Atlas 7
"Carpenter, serving as capsule communicator on this flight, can be heard saying "Godspeed, John Glenn" on the recording of Glenn's liftoff." Make the tense consistent, such as "Carpenter served as capsule communicator on this flight, and can be heard..."

The sentence about Deke withdrawing from the flight is a bit long, and could be broken in to two sentences. My recommendation is one sentence for Deke coming off the flight, and another for Carpenter replacing Deke over Schirra.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate, if able, on the experiments that made Aurora 7 more of a scientific flight than Friendship 7.

How is "trouble-free countdown" defined? Can you explain what made this countdown smoother than the others? Additionally, I recommend finding a different term than trouble-free, as it, by definition, means free of troubles, so it doesn't make sense that there is a scale of countdowns that don't have any problems.
There were no unscheduled holds or cancellations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would move the final mission details, such as the duration, to later on in the section, specifically at the end of the mission.

Are there any more details about the launch/early mission? This section is skewed heavily towards the later parts of the mission, especially retrofire and recovery.

I would remove the long direct quotes in this section. I think the NASA quote can be paraphrased, and the Cernan quote is very critical of Carpenter as a person and a pilot, but doesn't add additional information not already shown in the rest of the section (speculation about Carpenter's overuse of fuel, never flying in space again)

"At the retrofire event, the pitch horizon scanner malfunctioned once more, forcing Carpenter to manually control his reentry, which caused him to overshoot the planned splashdown point by 250 mi (400 km)." Edit this sentence to keep the tense consistent throughout.

"jerked the spacecraft off in yaw by 25 degrees to the right" It might be quicker to say "yawed the spacecraft 25 degrees right"
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The loss of thrust in the ripple pattern of the retros" I find this phrase a little confusing. I'm unfamiliar with how the retrorockets fire. I'm assuming they had a set sequence of ignition, and that sequence was delayed by Carpenter manually firing them?
Y Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"During reentry, there was a great deal of concern over whether Carpenter had survived. Broadcasting from a CBS news van in Florida, Walter Cronkite painted a grim picture." Was there more speculation than usual, or was it the standard concern over the astronaut's survival? This sentence seems out of place, as the section immediately goes to the success NASA had in tracking the spacecraft.
Our rockets always blow up. Many NASA engineers were unused to working in the public eye, and in view of many spectacular failures tended to be defensive. In view of this and other incidents, Julian Scheer was appointed head flack. And heads rolled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Unaccountably,..." This seems to editorialize NASA actions, as it is critical of the agency for not sharing the information.
Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on using "sinking" instead of "foundering?"

"The sea around him was stained with green dye." I would either remove this (my vote), or rephrase it to make Carpenter the subject, and say that he activated his dye packet. Otherwise, it comes across as a happenstance that the sea around the spacecraft was stained with green dye.

I would shorten the section about the aircraft finding him, and remove the sentences about Carpenter's actions, as I don't think it adds much to the description of his rescue.

"They were followed by SC-54 Skymaster aircraft, from one of which parachuted two frogmen, " Isn't there only one aircraft for the frogmen to jump out of?
No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to include the personal details of the rescue swimmers.
Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the sentence about the rescue collar with the previous sentence.
Done 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Explain why NASA mission control forbade USAF recovery, as that doesn't make sense to an uninformed reader.
Ostensibly because the seaplane might break up, but inter-service rivalries between the USAF and USN was involved. Added a bit, but the reader is no better informed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before, I would remove the Cernan quote.
I think it demonstartes the way Carpenter was seen by the junior astronauts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the last paragraph, as it appears to mostly be speculation and blame-placing over Carpenter's fuel issues.
I feel that it should be there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean research
Can you explain how Carpenter became involved with SEALAB, as the section opens up with him getting injured while on leave for the SEALAB program.

"During Coopers's Gemini 5 mission, he spoke to Carpenter in SEALAB II, the first conversation between a craft in outer space and one on the ocean floor." I would shorten this to "During Cooper's Gemini 5 mission, he and Carpenter had the first conversation between a craft in outer space and one on the ocean floor." I think it reads better without the extra clause in the middle.

Break up the final sentence, as a lot happens in it (two retirements and the founding of a company)

Personal life
Any reason that you included the middle names of all of this children? I feel like you don't normally see that in articles.
I didn't; it was there before I arrived. We usually include it, if known, because they usually contain familial connections, and make it easier for the people researching some actor or racing car driver to know that it is likely to be the same person. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Together, they had two children: Matthew Scott and Nicholas Andre, who would later become a filmmaker." It's a little confusing from the wording alone who became a filmmaker (although it's more clear when Nicholas has a Wiki link on his name). I would also recommend against using the colon to list two children, as I think using a full sentence would be more appropriate.

"Their marriage produced a son, Zachary Scott," For lack of a better word, it sounds very sterile to say that the marriage produced a son.
It's the usual pro-forma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"co-written with his daughter, Kris Stoever" I know that Kris Stoever is the name listed on the book, but I think you should refer to her as Kristen to be consistent with the reference to her earlier in the paragraph.
Y Okay. Did you spot her in the funeral pics? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what she looks like, but I'm guessing she is in the picture if you're mentioning her. The blonde woman in between Patricia and the sailor who is handing over the flag?
Good guess. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His fourth wife is alternately called "Patty" and "Patricia." I think the naming should be consistent (my vote is the more formal "Patricia")
Caused by me adding the funeral pix. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would move "at the time of his death" to the beginning of the sentence about his surviving family members.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and honors
I would remove the top part with "Carpenter received:" as it is clear that these are his awards.

In popular culture
"Carpenter has been reported also to have said, prior to the "Godspeed" comment, "Remember, John, this was built by the low bidder". This comment is sometimes improperly attributed to Glenn." This is a little confusing, as it states that Carpenter reportedly said this, but then states that it is incorrectly attributed to Glenn. It doesn't make sense that there is some debate over whether Carpenter said it, but that it certainly wasn't Glenn.
Y I've removed it, as I don't think it is important. People can read it at Wikiquote. And the Peanuts reference, which I'm calling cruft. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books
I would change the description for Deep Flight, as it reads like a tagline for the book
I don't have anything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would just list that it's the sequel to The Steel Albatross

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead section could be expanded. Currently, it is 3 sentences long, and doesn't provide much of an overview of the article.
Y Expanded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. Are you planning to add any information about Carpenter's later life (particularly his career), or is there limited information?
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
No concern, other than my personal grumbles over your citation style for the books, as mentioned in my previous review.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
No concern.

C. It contains no original research:
No concern.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig lists a 51% chance of violation, with the most common phrases coming from the archived page of scottcarpenter.com. Looking through the similarities, it appears that most of issues stem from titles or other proper nouns, but there are a few cases, such as "Preflight School, Moraga, California, and four months in primary flight training at Ottumwa, Iowa" and "transitional training unit at Whidbey Island, Washington, until October 1951. In November 1951, he was assigned to Patrol Squadron 6" that could be better paraphrased.
With a bit of effort, it's now up to 89.4% Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The answers.com page didn't show up yesterday. I'm guessing that information from the Wikipedia page was copied in that case, not the other way around.
It was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
If it's available, there should be more information about Carpenter's post-NASA life. As the article stands, it mentions that he founded a company, and the only details about his later life are his marriages and death.
Y Added some more. Not much available. Maybe Kees08 has something more to say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The Mercury 7 sub-section details too much about the program itself, instead of focusing on Carpenter's role in it. I think it's good to include a sentence or two about the program's origins, requirements, etc., I don't think it needs to have two paragraphs about the 69 candidates, and their respective services pledging their support. Additionally, the paragraph about Jim Lovell and Bob Gilruth doesn't relate to Carpenter.
Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No concern.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No concern.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No concern.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Shorten the caption of the pall bearers taking the casket into the church. It uses the word "retired" in it, which doesn't seem relevant, and also references the casket going into the church, and later references the church by name. I also don't think you need to mention that the church is in Boulder in the caption, as that information is in the main article.
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "the" from the caption.

Thoughts on replacing "take" with "carry?" I think that is a more appropriate term for pall bearers with a coffin.
Done. 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm calling it quits for the night, and will plan on getting back to my reviewing tomorrow evening. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used to use the Tara Gray citation, but ever since I stumbled upon a collectSPACE forum post with Colin Burgess questioned the accuracy of it, I have been removing it. They actually specifically talk about the Scott Carpenter portion of the site as well. Worth checking out, been awhile since I read it. May be worth replacing all those citations. Kees08 (Talk) 05:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have some reservations about Burgess, starting with the fact that he occasionally uses the Wikipedia as a source. There's an important fact in the article where I have accepted Stoever over Burgess. Will have a look at Gray. It seems that at one point an editor copied blocks of her piece into our article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It can be hard finding the correct facts for events that happened 50 years ago. I mostly mentioned Burgess so it did not look like I was linking to a random forum post. Hell, the amount of conflicting information I have found on who would be the first to step on the Moon is astounding. Going to hit that section again. Anywho, I am done touching the Cooper article for the day in case you want to work on it; let me know if you need any assistance on anything. Otherwise I will work on addressing the comments to the Aldrin and Apollo 11 articles. Kees08 (Talk) 00:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here was trying to reconcile Carpenter's claim that he turned down a Gemini assignment. This would be possible if Slayton were planning them in 1963 or early 1964. It is possible; it was originally hoped that Gemini would fly in 1964. Similarly, it was thought that Apollo would fly in 1966, and there was thought of having a Gemini mission and an Apollo one simultaneously. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a humorous aside, when I discovered Burgess is Australian I decided to find a photo of him to make sure it was not you. Kees08 (Talk) 00:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

I have finished my initial review, and will be placing the review on hold. Nice job on the article! As there are a few things requiring more text, notably the lead section and his later life, I'll plan on adding more comments once it is rewritten. Let me know if you have any questions, or need clarification on some of my comments (it was my first day back at work after the holidays, so I wouldn't be surprised if my brain isn't firing on all cylinders). In the meantime, I'll begin reading about a certain Chief of the Astronaut Office. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shepard was the Chief of the Astronaut Office; Deke Slayton was Director of Flight Crew Operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I need to get going on that book! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished. All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While we've disagreed on some points addressed above, I think that you have done a great job with this article, and I'm happy to pass this review! Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]