Talk:Thomas P. Stafford/Archives/2018/February

This is an archive of past discussions about Thomas P. Stafford. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Paraphrasing Needed

This article heavily plagiarizes from the official NASA bio. I will work in the coming days to paraphrase it, and draw in other sources (in particular, Gen. Stafford's book). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Good news! If you did not know, NASA material is PD, so you could just use the {{Include-NASA}} template if you would like. Nothing stopping you from rephrasing it if you would like to, I usually do, just wanted to let you know that it is technically okay as-is. Kees08 (Talk) 04:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Makes sense. I knew that NASA material was public domain, but it did not occur to me that this meant the text was free to copy. I still think most of the article is incomplete and reads poorly. I'm working on improving the article's format and content to more accurately reflect the layout of the Good and Featured astronaut pages, especially Alan Shepard's. I've just redone the "Early life and education" section so far, and plan to tackle more of the article in the coming days. Any feedback is appreciated! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweet! I will try to swing by the article from time to time. An easy one is that section titles are to be in sentence case, for example 'Military Service' should be 'Military service', per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings. I think you have the right idea though. Kees08 (Talk) 05:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas P. Stafford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take me several days to complete the review. It is not necessary to wait for me to address all points before starting updates. All of my comments are up for discussion. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
No concern. Nice work.

Early years and education
Do any sources say how old he was when he took his first flight? It's not vital information, but tacking it on a sentence about him making model airplanes and before mention of his high school makes me think he was young.
Stafford was 14 at the time (according to page 4 of his book). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I added his age of the first flight. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"competitions, and graduated in 1948." - this sentence is a bit long. I suggest breaking that last bit off as "competitions. He graduated in 1948."
I decided to just remove both the football and math competitions section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Stafford was recruited to play football and earn a Navy ROTC scholarship at the University of Oklahoma" - this sounds like he was recruited for the scholarship, which I'm guessing was not the case. I suggest revising as "...play football at the UoO, where he also had a Navy ROTC scholarship."
Your version reads much better, thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I updated the sentence to disassociate the scholarship and football. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"alongside fellow future astronaut Jim Lovell" - this seems like incidental trivia. Were they friends?
They were in the same astronaut class, which is why I included it. I can see how it is also trivial. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the phrase about Lovell. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

" a destroy escorting " - destroyer?
Typo on my part. I'll wait until you finish your review before I begin editing the page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I fixed this typo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

" as the US Air Force Academy was not yet established." - This is tangential. I suggest formatting it as a note and explaining a little more about the change.
How would you recommend putting it in as a note? I wanted to include this info somewhere, as I can understand how it could seem strange to the casual reader that he was a Naval Academy grad, and then commissioned in the USAF. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
It's easier to see than explain, I think. You can see what I did in these edits and expand the note if you'd like. More information is available at WP:REFNEST.
I like what you did and will not edit your note further. Thanks for showing me how to do that! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Military service
" first phase pf pilot training " - should be of
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

NASA career
"it was redesignated Gemini 6A and would rendezvous " - this sentence switches tense. The second half should be something like "and was planned to rendezvous" to agree.
I made this edit. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Gemini 6A ignited, followed by an immediate" - I think "6A's ignition was followed by" reads more smoothly.
I made this edit. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Gemini 6A lifted off, and rendezvoused " - comma not needed after "off"
Comma removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Schirra reported seeing an..." seems tangential.
I wanted to include the Santa anecdote, but I can see how it's extraneous. I have removed it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

" landing, and were killed immediately" - comma not needed, and I'm not sure "immediately" is needed either. The speed of their deaths seems irrelevant to Stafford.
Good point. I removed "immediately." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"the Apollo 1 fire, and subsequent " - comma not needed
Comma removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

" in the LM, and entered " - comma not needed
Comma removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"The LM docked docked with the CM " - double docked?
Repeat word removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"east of Samoa, and was recovered " - comma not needed
Comma removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

link edema and nitrogen tetroxide
Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"was jettisoned, along with the flags of all fifty states" - what's the significance of the flags? Seems tangential.
Removed the fragment about the flags. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Post-NASA career
" made them unable to travel " - I think left them unable is a better verb, but either is ok.
I changed it to "left them unable" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Stafford created a consulting firm, Stafford, Burke, and Hecker, with two recently retired general officers." - suggest "With two recently retired general officers, Stafford created the consulting firm Stafford, Burke, and Hecker in 19__."
Unable to find the year of the firm's founding right now. I should be able to find this date in the book, but didn't want to seem like I was ignoring this change. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal life
no concern

Awards and honors
"Sperry Award, jointly" - comma not needed
Comma removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Aleksei A. Leonov and Konstantin" - comma is needed after "Leonov"
Change made. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Bushuyev, for" - comma not needed
Comma removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"AIAA Award" - link to American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and maybe a specific section if possible.
Change made. Should I keep the full name linked later in the section? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine, but don't be surprised if other editors call it WP:OVERLINK if you submit this for FAC.

The first paragraph has a pretty repetitive structure. I think at least some of it could be combined in a "Stafford was awarded the AAA award from BBB (year), the CCC medal by DDD (year), and the EEE award from FFF (year)." This is at your discretion and leisure, however. The change is not required to pass the GAN.
Made this change. Any feedback is appreciated on how the new paragraph looks. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

In media
no concern

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:
Please link this preview of We Have Capture in the reference. The references should also link publishers (like Smithsonian Institution Press) and authors (like Michael Cassutt) when possible.
I am unfamiliar with including Wikipedia links within a reference. What is the proper way to include it? I can't just put the double brackets around the author names, as I have broken up author names as first and last. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Most fields will let you add the double brackets for a link. For authors, you need to use an additional field without the brackets. I did the first one here as an example.

I linked the book images for Cernan and Stafford's books. Additionally, I linked the publishers for webpages and books whenever possible. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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:
There are some high returns from earwig, but they're a combination of public domain texts and long, unavoidable phrases like "commander of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project ". I have no concern here.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
no concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
a few tangential points are noted above, but no major 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:
Aside from one act of vandalism that was reverted within two minutes, the article is free of editwars and vandalism.
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:
The infobox should have a caption indicating the year the photo was taken (1972). Similar changes needed for the Gemini GA image (1965), the Apollo 10 image (1969), and the LtGen Thomas Stafford image (2009)
Added image years. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Notes are complete, and a pass is pending some minor adjustments. Overall, nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Thanks for the feedback. A lot of good points, and I'm surprised by some of the typos I missed (particularly "docked docked"). I'll plan to begin tackling this tomorrow. Thanks for the feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Great work! Very happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing Congressional Space Medal quote

I feel like the Stafford quote upon receiving the Congressional Space Medal of Honor isn't terribly signficant, as he does not say anything particularly unique or profound. I propose removing it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)