Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Roger B. Chaffee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Roger B. Chaffee[edit]

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Roger B. Chaffee/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article recently passed for GA and received a copy edit from GOCE. Roger Chaffee was an American astronaut who died well before his time to shine. He had a lot of promise as an astronaut, and tragically Apollo 1 took that away. Anyways, I read his biography and incorporated all relevant material from it, as well as relevant material from the Apollo 1 AIB. Kees08 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have some suggestions:

Make "Boy Scouts", "Education" and "Family" sub-headings, and remove "Purdue"
- Agreed, Done
Consolidate the last two sentences in "Purdue" into the last paragraph.
- Funny, I did this when I did your previous suggestion. So, Done
Under "family", per WP:BLP, I don't think we should have the birth dates of his children, as they are living and non-notable.
- I think keeping the year is fine per WP:BLP, which I did, if you disagree let me know, otherwise Done
Link Greenville, Michigan, Ordnance Corps (United States Army), Annapolis, Maryland, Dean's list, West Lafayette, Indiana, Oklahoma City, NASA Astronaut Group 3, NASA, Houston, Texas, Reno, Nevada, Gemini 3
- NASA astronaut group 3 was already in there, and I did not see a good place to put the ordnance corps link. Otherwise, Done Kees08 (Talk)
The article uses some dmy dates
- More than happy to admit I am blind, but I only see mdy. Did I miss it? Kees08 (Talk)
  - Yup. I have made the change for you. [1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything about his wife? Did she have a job or anything before they were married?
- Homemaker, added it to the article Done
Mention that Lake Champlain was an aircraft carrier
- Done
Why are some squadrons links by their name and some by the abbreviated form (eg VAP-62)?
- Ignorance. I changed VAP-62 to be the squadron and did not see any others, let me know if I missed one. Done
  - Fixed up these too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The A3D linked is twice
- Fixed
"flattop or aircraft carrier" The reader may not know the former is slang for the latter; if they do, it is redundant; so delete "flattop or"
- Done (as an aside, I probably put that there because I did not realize at the time they were the same thing)
Any idea when he was promoted to Lt (jg) or Lt?
- Looked really hard for this, did not see in his biography, did not find via google, and could not find by looking through old newspapers.
"During his Navy service he logged" should be "During Chaffee's Navy service he logged" Last name on first mention in a paragraph.
- Done
"1800 hours of flying time" should be "1,800 hours of flying time"
- Fixed
Comma after Fairborn, Ohio
- Fixed
"where he found a message" should be "when" unless he found the message on the hunting trip
- Done
Training: you might want to say why training in geology was considered important rather than, oh I dunno, learning to pilot a spacecraft
- Done - put a little excerpt on the rationale in the article
Why do we describe Wally Schirra as a "Mercury veteran" but not Gus Grissom?
- Done
Suggest removing the "Accident" heading and making "Aftermath" a major heading
- Done
The article should make it clear that Chaffee's death was asphyxiation by poisonous gases.
- Added details of him losing consciousness and of his death Kees08 (Talk)
You say that "Grissom, White, and Chaffee got permission to name their flight Apollo 1" but "Shortly after the AS-204 fire in 1967, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight Dr. George Mueller announced the mission would be officially designated as Apollo 1." Which was it?
- I am going to summarize all the sources that say how it got named, and I will come up with a summary that reflects that. NASA history office says that "The AS-204 mission was redesignated Apollo I in honor of the crew." The Smithsonian says 'After the disaster, the mission was officially designated Apollo 1.' Another NASA page says 'In the spring of 1967, NASA's Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, Dr. George E. Mueller, announced that the mission originally scheduled for Grissom, White and Chaffee would be known as Apollo 1.' Lastly, Astronautix says 'The designation AS-204 was used by NASA for the flight at the time; the designation Apollo 1 was applied retroactively at the request of Grissom's widow.' That all seems pretty cut and dried to me; I removed the incorrect statement and added an additional citation to the correct statement. Kees08 (Talk)
Use a quote template for the quote rather than italics
- Done
I would like the article to mention the improvements made to the spacecraft as a result of the fire, and the fact that the mission was flown as Apollo 7 by Schirra's crew in 1968.
- Done Added in a couple of specific details. Kees08 (Talk)
Delete the "see also section"
- Done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not see this til just now, I will start working through them. Thanks for the feedback! Kees08 (Talk) 06:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Well that took a little longer than it should have to address all the comments, but I just got the last one. Take another read through the article if you would like and let me know if there is anything else you would like me to address. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 03:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 and AustralianRupert: Seeing if I can get any interest on reviewing, let me know if you guys are interested and have any additional comments! Kees08 (Talk) 02:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thank you for your efforts. I took a quick look and have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States Navy is overlinked in the lead, I'd suggest possibly replacing the second one with a link to Officer (armed forces)
Done Thanks, missed that one. Kees08 (Talk)
I'm not sure about the level of detail included in the Boy Scout section, to be honest. Is it really necessary to list every badge he earnt?
Done That's fair, I think I was just excited I found every badge he had earned. Kees08 (Talk)
"The two-week flight was not...": does this relate to the first sentence in the paragraph? It seems a bit out of place, or I'm missing something?
Done Hopefully that makes it more clear. Kees08 (Talk)
"opportunity to work on his master's degree", is this the same master's as mentioned in the earlier section?
Done I had to double check the source, but yes it is the same. Kees08 (Talk)
"he experienced myocardial hypoxia, which gave him cardiac arrest and resulted in cerebral hypoxia..." --> "he experienced myocardial hypoxia, which sent him into cardiac arrest and resulted in cerebral hypoxia"?
Done - Agreed Kees08 (Talk)
inconsistent spelling: "Sheryl" v. "Cheryl"
Fixed Nice catch! I had misread the book, I corrected it. Kees08 (Talk)
"and was commissioned as an ensign in the U.S. Navy" --> "and was commissioned as an ensign" (the second mention of Navy is redundant)
Done Kees08 (Talk)
"saw this as too demanding of perfection..." --> "saw this as too demanding"?
Done Kees08 (Talk)
"Chaffee was awarded the Air Medal": do we know what he received this for specifically?
"After this, Chaffee spent time doing aircraft carrier flight training" --> "After this, Chaffee undertook aircraft carrier flight training..."?
Done Kees08 (Talk)
"kilometres" --> "kilometers" (US spelling)
Done Kees08 (Talk)
I think the article could possibly benefit from a copy editor's eye, so I wonder if you might consider listing it at the WP:GOCE
I actually had them go through it once before (March 28, 2017), but I can have them give it another go around. I can try to tidy up the wording myself as well, I can be a semi-competent copy-editor when I take my time on it. Kees08 (Talk)
I will try to come back later and have another look (sorry it's late here)
@AustralianRupert: I have addressed your first round of comments, feel free to hit me with round two whenever you get a chance. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 06:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Roger Chaffee Navy Portrait.jpg": suggest adding some sort of indicative date to the description page (even if it is a range);
Based on his sleeve insignia, and the fact it appears to be for a lieutenant in the Navy, it had to have been prior to February 1, 1966. I am not familiar enough with the Navy to get any closer to that. Kees08 (Talk)
"File:Apollo1-Crew 01.jpg": source links on the description page appear to be dead;
Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
"File:Apollo 1 fire.jpg": same as above
Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
[2]: appears to be a dead link
Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
"when he found a message from NASA in...": move the NASA link from here to the first mention of the term
Prior to that, it was NASA astronauts which is used as an adjective for astronauts. I would rather have it where it is, do you have strong feelings one way or the other? I could be wrong :) Kees08 (Talk)
G'day, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning here, to be honest, but it is a minor point for me, so I've added my support. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to defer to your experience here, since I am probably wrong. Kees08 (Talk)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

"United States Navy), was an American naval officer": repetition.
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Thanks for the review. Would it be proper to start the article 'Lieutenant Commander Roger Chaffee was an...'? I am not a big fan of the parenthesis at the beginning. Kees08 (Talk) 01:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, not sure if there is anything written down, but by convention I think within Milhist bios we tend to only include rank at the start of the article for those who reached star rank. I'm not really fussed either way, but Ian could probably confirm or deny this: @Ian Rose: thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert is right that the practice has tended to be only using rank if 1-star or above. That said, I would not be putting the rank in parentheses after the name either. It looks odd there, it has no particular bearing on his notability, and it's already specified in the infobox (complete with insignia, which I think is overdoing it, but seems common in US military bios). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I have a potentially stupid question...he has one star on his sleeve, but that is not what you mean when you say 1-star and above right? You mean like a 1-star general for example? Kees08 (Talk) 04:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 1-star general or above -- and don't worry, I don't believe there are any stupid questions on WP... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the US Navy it is usually called "flag rank" because they have a flag that they fly from their flagship. I've removed it, but added his promotion in the lead. Hope that works. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the best solution all round. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, too. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- just re-reading the lead (and the relevant part of the main body), we should avoid seasonal references such as "fall of 1954" wherever possible; can we zero in on a particular month from the sources? At the very least we should use "autumn" for our non-American readers... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: - the article seems to be about ready for promotion, though I'd like to see Ian's comment here addressed first. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very busy IRL, but plan to work on this as soon as I can. Kees08 (Talk) 05:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose and Parsecboy: I have made the change suggested above. The source provided in the text only seems to use "fall of 1954", so I couldn't find an exact month. I have simply changed this to "autumn" per Ian's suggestion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate -- I haven't looked closely enough at the article overall to support but no objections to promotion based on the tweaks per my comments above, and other reviewers' support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.