Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Glenn/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2017 [1].

John Glenn[edit]

Nominator(s): Kees08 (Talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Glenn is one of the most viewed spaceflight articles on the project. He died recently, which made me work towards making his article my (hopefully) first featured article. He was the first American to orbit the Earth, was a highly decorated marine, and served as Senator for much of his life. If you notice on the talk page that this article just failed A-class review, I wanted to note that was due to a lack of reviewers and not due to any opposes. Hopefully I can garner enough interest here that we can get this article the rest of the way to FA. Kees08 (Talk) 07:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Light show, JustinTime55, and Hawkeye7: Apologies for not asking pre-nom, but if any of you significant contributors would like to be co-noms just let me know (or add yourself). Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 21:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to be a co-nominator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:John_Glenn_Signature.svg: source link is dead
    Now I just feel argumentative, I hope it is not seen that way :). For this one, is a live source required, since signatures are not copyrighted in the US unless they are artistic? Otherwise, I suppose I could use another PD image and extract the signature out of it, then link to that. What do you think of this case? Kees08 (Talk) 20:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were significant information to identify a source without the live link (eg. a Google Books link in a book citation) I'd be less inclined to push it, but in this case the URL doesn't really speak to either original source or credibility, and a source is required under the image use policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How about [2]? Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Friendship_7_insignia.jpg: tag indicates that use of insignias is restricted - how does this affect this image? Same with File:STS-95_Patch.svg
    I do not think that it does, as the work was created by NASA, so as far as we are concerned in the US it is in the PD. I believe that notice is put there in case individuals in other countries want to use the image, they can see that it may not be in the PD in their country and that they should investigate that. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 20:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't seem to find mention of the issue in the legal document linked from the tag, but this page suggests that at least some logos/insignia are not PD despite being created by NASA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean this text specifically? "NASA images may be used as graphic "hot links" to NASA Web sites, provided they are used within the guidelines above. This permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia, the retired NASA logotype or the NASA seal. NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material." If so, I believe it is specifically discussing using them as hot links to NASA websites, so as long as we are not hotlinking to NASA with those images, we are fine. Did you mean another part of that page? Kees08 (Talk) 21:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:92OHSenateCounties.PNG: what's the source of the data presented in this image?
    I have a request in the Resource Exchange right now for the data. I replaced the image with one that looks better, but obviously that does not solve the data source issue. I will let you know when I hear back. Kees08 (Talk)
  • File:Annie_and_John_Glenn_1965.jpg: source link suggests the correct license would be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked pretty hard at this one in the Commons, with this showing that photos donated by Nationaal Archief are PD, and this talking about it in English more. I think its just slightly incorrect information in the metadata of the photo. The National Archief template is where the CC license comes from, which is another reason I think that all of the photos they donated are with a commons license. What are your thoughts? I am open to being wrong about this. Kees08 (Talk)
    On the Nationaal Archief website, the image is clearly tagged as being CC0/PD - because that's a less restrictive license, I'd be more inclined to go with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's fair, I'll use a PD tag. Kees08 (Talk)
    Replaced, let me know if that is good. Kees08 (Talk)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. (Note that I don't cover end-sections, such as the Awards section.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

This is a little outside my usual area of work, but a significant figure, so I'd like this to be as good as possible. Feel free to revert any copy edits I make. Vanamonde (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm afraid I'm tending towards a weak oppose. A lot of fine work has gone into this article, and it is certainly up to GA standard or better. At the same time, it relies heavily on news sources despite some decent book sources being available. The prose is occasionally a little scratchy, and could benefit from attention from a better copyeditor than myself. It also often reads a bit like a list, rather than a bio. I will complete my review, because I think this process should be about article improvement, and not about checking it against a single standard; I would also be willing to change my mind later, but this is my current assessment. Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early life section is rather brief. Do we not have any further information?
    Plenty. I have expanded the section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better.
  • A lot of sentences start with "He", can we mix it up a bit?
  • How does one a pilot's degree in a physics class?
    Ostensibly because the course included aerodynamics, combustion and heat transfer. Added this. But it was 1941, and there was a war. (When I was stationed in Texas around the turn of the century, football players could get credit for learning how to operate a microwave oven.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm.
  • I think you need to clarify that Annie actually went to the same college (or did she?)
  • "inspired by the marriage." Strange phrase
  • "Having completed his training in March 1943" is this training as a marine, or as a pilot?
    Pre-flight training. The stuff you see in An Officer and a Gentleman. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some issues with the order of references
    Any idea what they are? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for instance "had qualified for a regular commission.[27][22]". I've found the quickest way to fix this is to search for the string "][", which gives you all the instances of multiple refs, and then check those.
  • What happened to him between October 1952 and February 1953?
    Added "After a short period of leave, during which he moved his family back to New Concord, and two and half months of jet training at Cherry Point, he set out for Korea in February 1953." Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his ability to attract enemy flak" unclear whether this attraction was part of his job (in which case "ability" is appropriate) or whether it was accidental (in which case it isn't.)
    It's not part of your job per se, but you get hero points for flying through flak. There's not much a pilot can do, so it is not held against you if you get shot down, as Neil Armstrong did. The record is held by Kim Campbell, whose A-10 Thunderbolt II was holed 1,400 times over Baghdad in 2003. Fortunately, the A-10 can fly on just one engine, and without hydraulic systems, stabiliser or air brakes. The landing gear just drops and locks into place, and, most importunately, the pilot is protected by a titanium "bathtub". She was able to fly home and land the aircraft, which was a total write off, and is now in the USAF Museum in Dayton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I'd suggest saying "tendency" instead of "ability".
  • Jumping back and forth in the chronology is a bad idea unless there's a really good reason, and I'm not seeing any such reason in the third paragraph of "Korean War"
    Re-organised so the section flies straight. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "27 combat missions in the faster F-86." Faster than what?
    Than the F9F. Added a bit to make this point clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glenn shot down his first MiG-15" Was this his first "kill"? Otherwise, why is it notable?
    To have shot down a MiG made you a hero in the early 1950s. It put Glenn right at the top of the Ziggurat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So maybe say that.
  • On my screen the final word "medals" is all by its lonesome below the picture. I'd suggest moving the image to the right.
    On my screen, there is no room for images on the right. The image of him at Patuxent sandwiches the text between it and the images of him from STS-95 and the F-86. Moved the images into their appropriate sections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The military career section in general feels a bit like a list, without much interesting detail. I'm not certain how best to fix this, though; I will think on it further.
    I can add more details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before Glenn's appointment as an astronaut in the Mercury program, he participated in spacecraft design." This is unintentionally misleading; it reads as though he participated in the engineering side of things. The rest sounds more like he was the guinea pig. Or am I wrong about that?
    About whether he participated in the engineering design (which he did), or about whether it is unintentionally misleading? In any case, I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "graduate-level introductory space science" bit contradictory?
    Our oxymorons are mighty weak. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need a brief explanation of what the Friendship 7 flight was
    Added.
    Much much better.
  • You don't really need subsections under Project Mercury
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glenn is honored by President Kennedy at temporary Manned Spacecraft Center facilities at Cape Canaveral, Florida, three days after his flight." I think the tense is odd for a caption.
    Really? It is adapted from the original captain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked it myself, if you're unhappy we can discuss it.
  • "On February 23, 1962, President Kennedy" Kennedy should be "U.S. President" the first time, but then just as "Kennedy" thereafter
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soviet Union orbited a female cosmonaut" I find "orbited" an odd word in the circumstances; I have a mental image of Russia spinning around Tereshkova.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "detailing his opposition to sending women into space" I think it's important to both explain what his reasons were, and any substantial response, which seems likely to have occurred.
    Blatant sexism. The early 1960s was the nadir of gender relations in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better. Unsurprising, perhaps, but is there a sentence or so of commentary we could add from someplace?
  • There is a good bit of redundancy between "Resignation" and "1964 Senate attempt".
    Not only that, but there is a discrepancy. Where's Justin? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that? I combined the two sections to maintain a chronological order and removed the redundancy Kees08 (Talk) 06:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holding off on 1964 and 1970 senate runs for now; will return after the previous issues are sorted out.
  • "The results of the task force" odd phrase: "findings of the tf"? "report of the tf"?
    Good point, reworded to better reflect the source material. Kees08 (Talk) 06:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metzenbaum's eventual victory seems better suited to the next subsection, where its relevance is clear.
  • "Late 70s and 80s campaigning" has a lot going on, but is not clear. When did he run for president?
  • Why was there tension, and why did it thaw?
  • Why is Metzenbaum's 1988 election relevant?
  • "Glenn introduced bills on energy policy to try to counter the energy crisis in the 70s." The trouble with politicians is that probably most senators expressed a desire to "counter the energy crisis". It's political hot air. What did the bill do to counter it? That is what is relevant.
  • " based on nuclear non-proliferation," perhaps better as "promoting nuclear non-proliferation"?
  • Also the subsection title is a bit strange: perhaps "Activities" would be more appropriate.
  • Link or explain "Taiwan Enabling Act of 1979"
    Linked Kees08 (Talk) 06:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1979, another dispute Glenn had with President Carter was Glenn's stance on the SALT II treaty" Overly complex wording
  • Rather heavy use of the OSU source in that section...
  • "illegal foreign donations by China" is it possible for China to make either legal or domestic donations? Maybe better as "donations by the Chinese government to...At the time, foreign donations to political campaigns..."
  • "Considerable acrimony existed between Glenn and committee chair Fred Thompson of Tennessee." Why?Also didn't the article just say Collins was chair?
  • We definitely need more detail in the savings and loans scandal section; not negative information, necessarily, but for the uninformed reader to have at least some idea of what he was accused of doing wrong.
  • The renamings of the school don't really need a whole sentence.
    They are a separate thought, I am not sure what sentence I would combine it with, do you have a suggestion? Kees08 (Talk) 17:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say his campaigning for Kennedy's presidential candidacy should come before Kennedy's assassination
    Agreed, changed the wording around. Kees08 (Talk) 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but that too went to Mondale" sounds a bit colloquial, I'd suggest "lost to Mondale once again"
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 02:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aide Greg Schneiders" Presumably Glenn's aide, but the article should say so.
  • "because he did not meet the study's conditions;" It would be interesting to learn what those were.
    Undisclosed medical reasons that NASA will not disclose, apparently. Edited the article to reflect that. Kees08 (Talk) 05:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first ever presidential email" As written, this can be parsed in many different ways...first email sent by a US president? (as an aside, it's a damn good thing that was 20 years ago; if that happened under Trump, there would be an article about reactions to the reactions to the email.)
    First ever email sent by a president. I think it sounds like that...is there a different way you would write that to get that message across? Kees08 (Talk) 06:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was renamed John Glenn Parkway for several months." Not certain there's anything to be done with this, but that is really strange...
    I reworded it a little bit, let me know if that is satisfactory. Kees08 (Talk) 06:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He received all of his degrees in full in a Mason at Sight ceremony from the Grand Master of Ohio in 1978, 14 years after petitioning his lodge" To a person such as myself who knows little to nothing of the Masons, this is incomprehensible.
  • There's a picture of Annie here, but Annie isn't actually mentioned in the personal life section.
  • "John and Annie Glenn dotted the "i" in Ohio State University's Script Ohio marching band performance" Again, is there anything we could add to help the uninitiated understand what this means.
    Made an effort to describe it without providing too much emphasis. Kees08 (Talk) 18:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need subsections under illness and death; they're very short subsections.
    Removed subsections Kees08 (Talk) 17:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the formatting of the awards rather strange, but I know little about military article conventions, so I won't make any suggestions here, except to say that you could combine Awards, Illness and death, and the "retirement" section into a single "Death and legacy" section with three subsections; but that's not necessary, the current structure is okay.
  • The one-sentence paragraph at the very end could probably be avoided.
    Moved into tributes section, seemed appropriate there. Kees08 (Talk) 03:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that's all I have for now, though I will reiterate my concerns about primary sources. I will take another look at this once my concerns have been addressed, and I may reevaluate my position; though, given the length of time this has been open, I'm wondering if that's the best option. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

  • After Glenn resigned from NASA in 1964 and retired from the Marine Corps the following year, he planned to run for a U.S. Senate seat from Ohio. An injury in early 1964... Is it me or is there a temporal discontinuity in there? --John (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks more like an error to me. Re-worded. Expanded the introduction slightly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we sure that During Glenn's first orbit, a scheduled 30-minute test to see if he could fly the spacecraft manually became significant when a failure of the automatic-control system was detected at the end of the first orbit; this forced Glenn to operate in manual mode for the second and third orbits and re-entry. Later in the flight, telemetry indicated that the heat shield had loosened. If this reading were accurate, Glenn and his spacecraft would be incinerated on reentry. is our best prose? "Significant"? Everything on this article had better be significant, else why would it be in the article? "If this reading were accurate" is awkward and (I think) a misuse of the subjunctive mood. "Incinerated"? I think we can do better than this. --John (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Looks up what the subjunctive mood is.) Okay, I have re-worded this bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this has been open a long time without attracting much support, and there is a weak oppose standing. Therefore I shall be archiving shortly. This can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, and in that time I would recommend that the nominators work with Vanamonde93 on any remaining issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Glenn/archive1&oldid=800507153"