Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive1

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster[edit]

Self-nomination. When I started working on this article it had just been delisted as a Good Article. Since then it has been given a major overhaul, been relisted (at which point the reviewer assessed it as A-class), and gone through a peer review. While the subject is a technical one, it is one which is likely to be of broad interest. I believe that this article is widely and well-referenced, and, after a number of helpful comments at GA and peer review stage, is comprehensive in its coverage. MLilburne 16:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm concerned about the last two sentences of the lead: "Media coverage of the accident was extensive: one study reported that eighty-five percent of people heard the news within an hour of the accident. The Challenger disaster has been used as a case study in many discussions of engineering safety and workplace ethics, and has inspired a television movie." There are no citations after either of these statements, and who are the "people"? Americans in general? Television viewers? Please reference these statements, and try to describe the study a bit more precisely. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, citations are not required in the lead, as the facts mentioned in the lead are discussed more fully, and cited, later in the article. However, I am happy to introduce citations if it is felt to be desirable. I'll certainly clarify the reference to "people". MLilburne 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support- I am amazed at how much work you've done to improve this article, MLilburne. I saw this article both before and after you did your reworking of it, and the improvement is substantial. You've made a very complex topic both compelling and easy to understand for the average reader. Good luck. Jeffpw 18:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very high quality, broad interest in area, well referenced, plenty of information, deserves to be featured. If it does get featured, I would also ask that it is nominated for "Today's Featured Article" on 28 January 2007. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my plan. Great minds think alike. Thanks for the support. MLilburne 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Though I the first paragraph is just a little too challenging, maybe... I also prefer it when the first sentence actually defines a topic, instead of implying it. Otherwise, great article and very interesting.-- Rmrfstar 23:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you will see, the lead is being worked on, so hopefully that will address your concerns. MLilburne 08:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's some issues with the lead section. I've copied it here, with the concerns highlighted with a dotted line (hover to see my comment):

The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on the morning of January 28 1986 at 11:39 EST, when Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated seventy-three seconds into its flight after an O-ring seal in its right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed. The seal failure caused a flame leak from the SRB that impinged upon the adjacent external propellant tank and aft SRB connecting strut. Within seconds, the flame caused structural failure of the external tank, and the orbiter broke up abruptly due to aerodynamic forces. The crew compartment and many other vehicle fragments were eventually recovered from the ocean floor.

The Rogers Commission, appointed by President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident, found that NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been a key contributing factor to the accident. NASA managers had failed to deal with the flawed design of the O-rings, had ignored warnings from engineers about the inadvisability of launching on an unusually cold day, and had failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors. The Rogers Commission offered NASA nine recommendations that were to be implemented before shuttle flights resumed.

Due to the presence of teacher in space Christa McAuliffe on the crew, many schoolchildren saw the launch live. Media coverage of the accident was extensive: one study reported that eighty-five percent of Americans surveyed in a poll had heard the news within an hour of the accident. The Challenger disaster has been used as a case study in many discussions of engineering safety and workplace ethics, and has inspired a television movie.

Tito xd^(?!?) 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very handy template! I will make those fixes now. MLilburne 08:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that template should be advertised more than it currently is...very useful...Gzkn 12:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well referenced, solid prose, explains not just the accident itself, but the lead up and the fallout (no pun intended). Anthony Hit me up... 04:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak object~~. The article is overall excellent, and I've copyedited some minor issues, but there's a few things that make me pause:
- Since many of these times depend on seconds after launch, could we get the exact time of launch up to the second?
  - It was 11:38:00.010 EST, so 11:38 was close enough for most purposes. But obviously not close enough for the rapid unfolding of events during the launch sequence, so I have listed the exact time where T=0 is mentioned.
- The Media Coverage section states that "only two studies have revealed more rapid dissemination [of news]". However, it only brings up one. What's the other one?
  - Added a mention of the other study.
- Most importantly, I've put two {{fact}} notices on the article where I felt it needed them. Until those two are fixed, I can't support it.
  - I've added a citation for one, and removed the other statement, for which I couldn't find a reliable source (IMDB doesn't count).

Tito xd^(?!?) 06:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your copyediting work on the article, and for your comments. I hope that the changes I've made will satisfy you; if not, let me know. MLilburne 07:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Strong support now. Tito xd^(?!?) 07:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've made a couple of small tweaks to your copyedit, mostly to ensure the technical accuracy of the statements. But your work is very much appreciated. Thanks for the support. MLilburne 07:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was worried about how some prepositions could have changed the meaning of things, so I'm glad you double-checked it. I also modified the caption of the image in the lede while I was at it. Tito xd^(?!?) 07:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad about that; I should have done something about that caption earlier. Again, I've given it a slight tweak but I think your version is a great improvement. MLilburne 07:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support great use of pictures (thei quality can be excused because of the circumstances), broad coverage and very informative. This would be a great article for the main page. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]