Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhea Seddon/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 promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 14 November 2022 [1].

Rhea Seddon[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my series on the first women astronauts. The fourth in the series is Rhea Seddon, a surgeon. (Her first name is pronounced "Ray".) She flew in space three times on the Space Shuttle. At 3,237 words, the article is a bit on the short side for a featured article, but I believe that it covers the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

Happy to provide a review for yet another astronaut bio. First comments on lead section:

  • Would be nice to learn also from the article how her name is pronounced. IPA maybe?
    It is pronounced "Ray" but I don't know how to do IPA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can just about read IPA but I can't write it either. There's probably people at places like the language ref desk who could help if you have a reliable source for the pronunciation. —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    /reɪ/ Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She did her internship at the Baptist Memorial Hospital-Memphis three years residency at the University of Tennessee hospitals in Memphis" this is a bit mangled; are the "internship" and the "residency" different parts of the US medical education or the same?
  • They are different parts. Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:US doesn't like "U. S. Navy".
    Changed to "US Navy". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Payload Commander" has been used lowercase before; make consistent one way or another
    Lowercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "expanding our knowledge" somehow I would prefer a less "humanity" point of view.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will look through rest of the article later. —Kusma (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Early life and education: did she write anything interesting about people in space while at school? As it is sourced only to her autobiography, I wonder whether it needs to be stated that these are her words.
    In 1960, she wrote a school report on what would happen to people who ventured into space.
    Yeah, that's what I was referring to (sorry I was unclear): was there anything interesting in that report?
  • How long is "internship"?
    One year. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite this being against the rules of the residency program" what was against the rules? Serving while a woman, serving while blonde, or serving in an emergency department?
    She worked in emergency departments at several hospitals in Mississippi and Tennessee, despite this being against the rules of the residency program. I think it is clear that working in ER at other hospitals was against the rules. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I was expecting more discrimination against women after the preceding sentences, but you're probably right that this is clear enough.
  • Selection: "[she] took a Metro Airlines flight to Clear Lake, Texas" why do we care about the airline? Is there some context I am missing?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1978, journalist Jules Bergman asked" presumably this was before January 16?
    Yes. Tweaked the wording to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selection: is the group of twenty one of many groups of applicants? (We later have 35 successful). Would it make sense to give the total number of applicants in this round?
    Yes. There were ten groups of about twenty. Expanded on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Training: "She was sent to the 1979 Paris Air Show with Mercury Seven astronaut Deke Slayton." I assume she represented NASA there and wasn't just on vacation. Is there anything more to say other than she attended?
    Goodwill trips are a large part of astronaut life. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seddon's assignment was the food system": the food system or the digestive system?
    No, just the Space Shuttle food system. Oddly, Wikipedia has no article on it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Space flights: "Seddon used her surgical skills to operate a bone saw to help build homemade repair tools for the satellite" From the source, it reads more like she had experience with the bone saw (and also that a different saw would also have done the trick).
    If they'd had one. One of the problematic aspects of Space travel is that you can't just pop round to Bunnings when you need hardware. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "life science missions" be "life sciences missions"?
    Yes. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their recommendations were ignored; NASA management ordered the Director of Flight Crew Operations, David Leestma, to proceed with this alternate. He took no action, and the mission was flown as originally planned." I don't understand what "this alternate" is in this context.
    Harvesting the organs without euthenising the test animals. Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later life: Presumably she then retired after her job in Nashville?
    Sort of. As the article relates, she wrote a book. I believe she is currently working on one about Hoot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending on which Hoot she is writing about and whether you have a reliable source, might this be worth adding? —Kusma (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I am very slow. Finally noticed that her hubby is nicknamed Hoot. —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning her book in this section (currently just in Awards), and perhaps some reviews? The section is otherwise a bit short.
    Sure. Added that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in continuing my review, my day job has been pretty exhausting the last couple of days. Anyway, did a few responses plus more prose review, hope it is helpful. —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good changes so far. The "Bubba" story could still do with some editing: we are told perhaps more than necessary about what this position was like under Abbey, but we are kept in the dark whether it changed under Puddy. In particular, did Seddon act as Puddy's pilot? —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. It does read more like a managerial job now. The pre-Puddy part could probably still do with some tightening. Do we know why Seddon got the job? —Kusma (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And did she stop acting as Bubba when she had her second child? Should that be made explicit? —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Made explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With the changes (and those in response to others) I can support. —Kusma (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • The lead seems over-long, proportionately. The third and fourth paragraphs in particular seem over detailed.
    Normally I use the article before expansion as the lead. Cut back a bit.
Ha! An excellent job.
  • "Other payloads included ..." Other than what? None have yet been listed.
    The experiments are all payloads too. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Project". Why the upper case initials?
    Proper noun, per the sources and our Extended Duration Orbiter article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as I am sure you are aware; much less a "high quality" one. But if, to quote the MoS, "it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" then fair enough. Just so long as you are sure that it gets over that bar - note the "independent" and, as this is FAC, don't forget to add "high quality".
    Independent, yes; but of course they are drawing on NASA as their source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flight Data File". Likewise.
    Likewise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise.
  • Why is shuttle given an upper case initial when used generally? Eg "for the early Shuttle flights", "Shuttle medical kit".
    Changed to "Space Shuttle" to be on the safe side". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She received her Bachelor of Arts degree". Lower case b and a.
    Another editor went through and capitalised the degrees. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 33#Capitalization of degrees Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that it matters who made the change nor what half dozen editors opine in a casual discussion. This is FAC, the MoS is the MoS: what evidence can you present that these are "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable" high-quality sources?
    The MoS uses capitals. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and spacing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see that a casual use in the MoS permits an exception of a clearly stated policy. If this were the case, the discussion which you first referred me to would not have been necessary.
    I am not aware of any clearly stated policy, which would override the MOS, which is only a guideline. Google ngrams shows that capitalisation is the preferred form. Another editor went through and capitalised the degrees based on the MOS. My personal policy is not to accept changes where there is disagreement among other editors, as this just leads to back and forth changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was awarded her Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree". Similarly.
    Similarly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly.
  • "she had to wait between cases in a folding chair in the nurses' bathroom". Minor point, perhaps "in" → 'on'?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 150 centimeters (60 in) minimum height." 150 cm is 59 in. (59.055) And did NASA really specify heights in centimeters?
    No, NASA specified 60 inches. I found this odd; in the old measurements, heights were measured in feet and inches. Rounding is done by the convert process. The NASA style guide says to use metric, due to an embarrassing incident resulting in the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of the incident. You should primarily use whatever was the actual criteria at the time. (And '|sigfig=' can cause convert to give any level of precision desired, as in 150 centimetres (59.055118110236 in).)
    Anyhow, per below, it has been changed to using inches. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    60 inches is not 150 cm, nor is 62 inches 160 cm. As written the impression is given that 2 inches is 10 cm.
    Hmmm. It seems that the unconventional form has created a dilemma for the conversion program. It have adjusted the significant figures to three so as to get the precision down to the centimetre, as it was clearly intended to be precise to the inch. This should address your concern. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The application required copies of her birth certificate and academic transcripts, and three references. For these she chose James Pate, the head of surgery at the hospital; Jose Guma, her flying instructor; and Jim Arnhart, the administrator of Rutherford Hospital." This seems to be trivia which would fail criterion 4.
  • This is actually quite important. A common blunder was getting a reference from someone important but who did not know you well. It tells you who Seddon thought were key people in her life, and can be compared with the references provided by other astronauts. So I now include it in all the astronaut biographies, where known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seddon was contacted by Jay F. Honeycutt from NASA and was asked to come to the Johnson Space Center (JSC) for a week of interviews and physical examinations, beginning August 29, 1977.[14] She flew down to Houston International Airport and took a short flight to Clear Lake, Texas, where the JSC was located." Similarly.
    Deleted the second sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The baby suffered from a serious condition arising from inhaling meconium, and was rushed by helicopter from Clear Lake Hospital to Houston's Hermann Hospital, where he soon responded to treatment." Ditto.
    It was enough for the newspapers. There was great interest in the first baby to be born with two astronaut parents. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seddon did not attend any of the astronaut funeral services (the family was represented by Gibson), but the widow of Mike Smith asked that he be buried in his NASA flight suit. It fell to Seddon to retrieve the flight suit from Hangar L at the Kennedy Space Center and scrub it clean in an industrial style sink there." Arguably more marginal, but still IMO fluff.
    I thought that this was very poignant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the awards and honors don't seem to me to get over the criterion 4 threshold.
    Already cut it back to her NASA awards, halls of fame (which another editor added) and the award for the book, which I regard as significant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you could lose "and the Tennessee Women's Hall of Fame in 2015.[58] The following year she was awarded the National Football Foundation Nashville Chapter’s Fred Russell Distinguished American Award" I could just about grit my teeth.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seddon's the food system". This may be a BritEng thing, but should that be 'food systems'?
    Looks like some words missing. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an attempt to activate the satellite". Was the satellite fixed?
    It was left in low orbit and was later repaired and launched into geostationary orbit by the STS-51-I mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments above, but I shall group some of the criteria 4 comments.
  • "A common blunder was ..." The fact that a professional person didn't make a common error in a job application is not noteworthy. The details of how they didn't make it even less so. "It tells you who Seddon thought were key people in her life": This may be noteworthy, but if you wish to defend its noteworthyness on these grounds, the information needs to be presented in a similar way in the article. I certainly didn't get even close to drawing that conclusion from what I read. Perhaps something like "She obtained references from three people who had most strongly influenced her to that point: James Pate, the head of surgery at the hospital; Jose Guma, her flying instructor; and Jim Arnhart, the administrator of Rutherford Hospital"? This or similar may be defensible, assuming the sources will back it.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The application required copies of her birth certificate and academic transcripts". In what way is this notable in a job application?
    It is unusual to ask for a birth certificate, and I had to think about it. It was called for as proof of US citizenship, which was a requirement for Federal government employment. Being born in the US makes you a US citizen. Anyhow, already deleted (see below). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was enough for the newspapers. There was great interest in the first baby to be born with two astronaut parents." I am sure that I read somewhere that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.[citation needed] And I have raised no objections to your admirably succinct summary of Paul being the first child born to an astronaut couple, just to the details of his childhood illnesses
    It received widespread coverage in reliable sources. Seddon goes into more graphic detail, being a doctor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re your "citation needed", are you actually unaware of the first of the five pillars of Wikipedia or are you being ironic?
Just being ironic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re widespread coverage and Seddon herself mentioning it, how is this relevant. If either compelled an editor to include material few FAs on contemporary articles would be shorter than 100,000 words.
So we have reliable sources and widespread coverage. That brings up relevance. It is relevant to the subject, not WP:UNDUE, not out of scope. So no issue there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I thought that this was very poignant." So do I. That doesn't make it notable. If poignancy were an excuse for including information in articles ... *shudder*.
    Very well. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for one response - the relevant comment is now in green. Meanwhile a couple of comebacks on other responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Do I have your support now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Hawkeye, I took my eye off the ball, yes you do. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN[edit]

  • "On these flights, she built homemade repair tools for a US Navy and" - a US Navy
    Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She found that she was 5.1 centimeters (2 in) above the 150 centimeters (60 in) minimum height. - reads like trivia, even though I think you're trying to say that she was short but just tall enough (did they lower the height requirements for this group?) - maybe "She found that she was just tall enough to meet the minimum height requirement of 60 in (150 centimeters) at 62 in (155 cm)" - this also addresses the point in the previous review that NASA at the time specified inches, not cm, but we now want to say the metric
    Re-worded along the lines suggested. I have verified it against the source, but it still seems weird to me: you did't express heights this way in imperial measurements, indicating that NASA was thinking in metric. NASA lowered the requirement by four inches, but only for mission specialists; pilots still had to be 5'4". In the days of Project Mercury, height requirements were strict because an astronaut who was too tall would not fit into the spacecraft. Lowering the height requirement was probably made to make more women eligible; the average woman in the US was 5'4". But it was probably a mistake; Seddon had recurring difficulties arising from being so short. Nonetheless, it stayed at 60 inches for subsequent selections, which was just too short. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The application required copies of her birth certificate and academic transcripts, and three references." - This feels like overspecificity; why does it matter that it wanted her birth certificate? The point here is who her references are, not the forms she submitted.
    Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A highlight was meeting with the President of France, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing." - This feels like trivia, unless this one meeting came up again later
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "United Savings and Loan refused to lend her the money without her father's co-signature, which was obtained." -> "United Savings and Loan required her father's co-signature to lend her the money." - the obtaining can be assumed
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It fell to Seddon to retrieve the flight suit from Hangar L at the Kennedy Space Center and scrub it clean in an industrial style sink there." - bit of editorializing there
  • "Hopes that training could now proceed uninterrupted were soon dashed; Seddon was called upon to participate in the selection of NASA Astronaut Group 13 (who became known as the "Hairballs")." - it seems odd to say that this additional duty "interrupted" her training, given that she was also working as the Bubba and being a doctor in addition to training. Also, you give this group's nickname, but not Group 8's (Thirty-Five New Guys)
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "June 5, 1991" - was SLS-1 delayed another year because of training group 8? Or was it something else?
    The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "logged her an additional" - obviously "her" is Seddon, but you haven't used her name anywhere in this paragraph
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as life sciences missions were not popular." - not popular with the astronauts, I'm assuming?
    Yes, among astronauts is what is meant here. Added. Not popular among NASA management or engineers either though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "report into the animal experiments" - "on" the experiments, or on alternate options for the experiments
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to proceed with the harvesting organs without killing." -> "to modify the experiments to harvest organs without killing."
    Changed as suggested. Getting gruesome here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "neurovestibular, cardiovascular, cardiopulmonary, metabolic, and musculoskeletal" - should link these words* "336 hours.[45][1][46]" - ref order
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assistant to the Director of Flight Crew Operations for Shuttle/Mir Payloads" - this is the same Bubba position, right? Did she remain in that position since she started, or leave and return? Or is this a new position, "Assistant for Shuttle/Mir Payloads" instead of just "assistant"?
    A new position. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she was detailed by NASA to" - you also used this wording in the lead, but "detailed to" is military jargon. Also, do we know why she was moved to Vanderbilt? Was it her idea or did NASA decide that she couldn't go on more missions and so should switch to doing the experiment preps?
    She could still go on more missions. Sources don't say, but she wanted to return to Tennessee to take care of her elderly father. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She wrote her memoirs, entitled Go For Orbit" - when?
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Tennessee Women's Hall of Fame
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following year she was awarded [...] in 2016" - redundant
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also received" - since you mention the years of all her other awards, it seems odd that this sentence gets no years
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She is also a Daughter of the American Revolution" - is membership in a lineage-based group an "award or honor"? Also, this is a really weird line to be the final sentence of this article, just feels tacked on at the end.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know where she lives now? Is it still Nashville/Tennessee?
    Yes. I could post her address, but BLP and all that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29 ( "- STS-51-D") has an odd dash at the start of the title
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few of the references aren't archived
    A bot will come along eventually. I have verified that they are all working. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--PresN 16:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Changes look good; shame that RSs don't clarify that the move to Vanderbilt was voluntary, but it is what it is. A fine article all around, and happy to Support. --PresN 01:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • As per the NASA tag, use of insignia/emblems is restricted - how does this usage comply? (Noting in particular that the Flickr source for File:Sts-58-patch.png uses a NC license)
    The NASA logo law refers to the NASA insignia, not the mission patches. (The STS-58 patch is on the NASA site here) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a source for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The NASA Insignia (the blue "meatball" logo), the NASA Logotype (the "worm" logo) and the NASA Seal may not be used for any purpose without explicit permission. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Margaret_Rhea_Seddon.jpg: source links are dead
    It is her 1978 official portrait. Added an archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Seddon_and_Gibson_with_newborn_baby_Paul.jpg: the given NASA reference does not return any results in their search, and the given source is non-NASA.
    Seddon credits it as a NASA image on p. 142 of her book. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I'll have a go at this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • "Significant Sigma Kappas" link works but appears to be subscription-only? That's fine but best use the relevant parameter.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • No special concerns except we seem to be relying on the subject's autobiography for more than just basic life info or her own thoughts. For instance:
    • Her school only recruited a science teacher because of Sputnik -- sounds plausible but is a student's understanding of the reasons for a school's decision the best we can do?
      This was indeed very common; there was a big push to ramp up science education in schools in the wake of Sputnik. How Sputnik Changed Education There are books on the effect of Sputnik on education. I found a history of her school About Parish History but unfortunately it does not mention this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • NASA deciding that one year of training was sufficient -- couldn't we cite this to a secondary, NASA-related source?
      Replaced with a secondary sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with earlier astronaut groups, each astronaut candidate was assigned a particular specialization -- again, why not a secondary source?
      Replaced with a secondary sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This statement looks like it's still cited to Seddon only... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ooops. Right page, wrong source. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For STS-1, the first orbital spaceflight of NASA's Space Shuttle program and the inaugural flight of the Space Shuttle Columbia, Abbey decided that the five MDs of the 1978 and 1980 astronaut groups—Norman Thagard, Anna Fisher and Seddon from the 1978 group, and Bill Fisher and Jim Bagian from the 1980 group—would be assigned to the search and rescue helicopters supporting the flight. These would be required if the Space Shuttle crashed or the astronauts had to eject. -- ditto.
      Added a secondary source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Entire first paragraph of Space flights -- I'd expect this to be at least augmented by another (secondary) source or two.
      This proved more difficult. Could not replace the first sentence, but the rest has been replaced with primary and secondary sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On this mission she logged 168 hours in 109 Earth orbits -- this would be in official records wouldn't it?
      Replaced with NASA page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...life sciences missions were not popular assignments among astronauts. In October 1991, she was designated the payload commander for the STS-58 / SLS-2 mission. This was a new position created to provide a single point of contact for the science crew. -- I'd have thought this should at least be augmented with another source.
      Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      life sciences missions were not popular assignments among astronauts still seems to be cited to Seddon alone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. Wracking my brain as to where else I might find it. Can remove it if that is an issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, I found the statement about the unpopularity of life sciences missions in Shayler/Burgess p. 519, but there it is also attributed to something Seddon said (but not to her autobiography). —Kusma (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanx. Added that to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Yeah, none of my comments here are to suggest I think Seddon would be an unreliable witness, it's just trying to keep the sources as objective as possible. Re. this instance, people can assume their personal feelings on something are shared by the wider community. Then again I don't know how it's expressed in Seddon's book, I mean if Abbey told her, "I'm really glad you volunteered for this 'cos it's hell getting anyone else to!" then fair enough... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What she says is:

      After returning from SLS-1, I had begun to look ahead to my next flight. There were several spacewalks planned, but I wasn't spacesuit qualified. There were some missions using the mechanical arm, but I wasn't excited about retraining to operate it. There were a few flights involving rendezvous, but that was pilot stuff. I wanted to use what I'd learned on SLS-1 to make SLS-2, the second life sciences mission, even greater. When I spoke to the chief of astronauts, Dan Brandenstein, he liked the idea. It wasn't as if there were lots of people vying for that mission. Physicians in the office were few, and most were either assigned to something else or didn't want to do that flight.(p. 404)

      To me this says a lot. That the life sciences missions were unpopular is understandable. For most of the astronauts, it wasn't their field of expertise or enthusiasm. Moreover, the astronauts themselves were often used as test subjects, which was invasive and uncomfortable and increased medical attention could lead to getting grounded. But the quote also shows the shift of the TFNGs from being new guys to being in charge of the asylum. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Tks, with the addition of the citation suggested by Kusma, I'm okay with this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto re. paragraph on animal testing in space.
      Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seddon became the Assistant to the Director of Flight Crew Operations for Shuttle/Mir Payloads, a new position, which involved travel to Russia. -- would've thought this could be cited to a reliable secondary source rather than an autobiography. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Cited. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for prompt responses and actions Hawkeye -- happy with all those apart from two queries above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected one; back to you on the other. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2022 (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/Rhea_Seddon/archive1&oldid=1121840573"