Talk:Elliot See/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 19:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good article. The only thing I would like to see more information about is See's Navy career pre-NASA (if the information is available) and the future of his wife and children after he died. The article is well sourced, and I think is deserving of a GA status. However, as I am new to reviewing, I will be asking for a second opinion. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait for a proper second opinion (those usually take months), but I will give you some comments to help out. I have done a few GA reviews, not an expert by any means.

I think people will get after you for 'not using the GA criteria' to review. Whether you did or not, it is not indicated by your post. You do not have to use a template, but I find it easier to. The type of thing you should be checking for is if the images have proper licensing (I even check mission patches and the like), are the captions reasonable, are there copyvio concerns, is the grammar pretty good, etc.

A couple of good examples are Hawkeye7's review of Chaffee and Joshualouie711's review of John Glenn.

With all the stated, I will look at the comments you have given and attempt to address them the best that I can. Kees08 (Talk) 01:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Thanks for the feedback! I will keep that in mind for future reviews! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion by Argento Surfer[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Per the initial reviewer's comment, I'm giving this a detailed second opinion. I'm going to move the GAN status to "on hold" for now. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"selected in the second group" - is in the right verb here? I feel like for would sound better. Maybe to be part of or as part of?
Preposition :P and I think for works fine. Split up the sentence too, which I think helps. Kees08 (Talk)

The second sentence is a bit long, but I'm not certain where the best place to split it is.
Found a spot to split it, gives the intro a nice variety in sentence length. Kees08 (Talk)

Biography
Do any sources say when he got married?
Yeah, added. Kees08 (Talk)

I think the career section could be more clear about See being a project pilot for GE. My first impression was that he flew those planes as a naval aviator.
Eh....I need to expand this whole section for it to make sense. I will see if I can get to it tonight. Kees08 (Talk)

Dear Lord did that section need work. It needs more too, but I think that is more A-class/FA level work. If you would like I can keep expanding it out, but it will take a bit and I am going to see if Hawkeye can help me with the military section. Kees08 (Talk)

"the new nine NASA" - I think "nine new NASA astronauts" sounds better. The caption indicates "new nine" was nickname for the group, but its use here is awkward.
Redid the whole sentence for clarity. Kees08 (Talk)

Organizations
See item 3A below

Legacy
The first bullet is really two items. They should be split.
Done Kees08 (Talk)

The location of the mirror memorial should be specified
Done Kees08 (Talk)

Please include the year for Apollo 15
Done, and added year for mirror, and put in chronological order Kees08 (Talk)

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
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:
The sources should be linked in the refs, for example Arlington National Cemetery in #1
Done Kees08 (Talk)

Ref 11 doesn't list a publisher. It's Highland Park High School Alumni Association.
Done Kees08 (Talk)

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:
no concern. Earwig returns weak hits due to common/unavoidable phrases.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The organizations section is only one sentence, which is not ideal. If it can't be expanded, I recommend moving this material to the career section.
I moved it in with legacy after I made that section prose instead of bullet points (which it technically should be I think). Still kind of a weird spot, but does that work? Could not find a good place in the career section for it. Kees08 (Talk)

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
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 - all public domain

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I think the infobox picture needs a caption with the date it was taken (1964). All other captions are suitable. None have alt text, but the captions are sufficient to explain the images.
Done Kees08 (Talk)

The only change I would want for an image would be moving the picture of Bassett and See to the right of the page, but I consider that an aesthetic opinion of mine. I understand that spacing is a concern with the images of the "New Nine" and egress training. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@Balon Greyjoy: @Kees08: - I have completed my second opinion, but the article looks pretty good. I'd be comfortable passing it after the minor notes above are addressed, but will leave the ultimate decision to Balon unless he indicates otherwise. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer and Balon Greyjoy: So...I made a lot of changes. Feel free to take another run at it, specifically the career section. Hopefully that cleared it up some. It needs more work (as noted above), but that might be for a higher level review than this (I intend to take this to FA eventually). I would also need to add in info about the future of his wife (the kids is out of scope of the article, per some Wiki policy I cannot remember), if Balon still would like me to do that. Kees08 (Talk) 06:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, and thanks for the quick responses. The expanded legacy section is nice, and I agree that prose is better for it. I'm comfortable with passing it, but will leave that up to @Balon Greyjoy: for now. If he doesn't respond within a week, I'll move ahead with the promotion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer and Kees08: Sorry that I've been MIA for the past few days. I agree that it is a good article. Just to confirm, all we need to do to approve it is updating the Good Article template to "GA?" Thanks! Nice job Kees08! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: No worries, I am in no rush. You replace the nomination template with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}} )page is 1 because this is GA1 in the URL, topic is the topic this was nominated under). Then update the classes to GA for all the WikiProjects, and add it to the appropriate section in WP:GA. In this case, in Natural Sciences, under Physics and Astronomy, under Astronauts and cosmonauts. Kees08 (Talk) 01:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: I have submitted it, thanks for the guidance, and @Argento Surfer:, thanks for all of the help, and showing me how to properly do a GAN review. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]