Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Laser brain (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 3 November 2021 (→‎Source review: thx). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1986 disaster during the launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger that killed all 7 astronauts aboard. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support with regard to FA Criterion 1A. Graham Beards (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I think I have addressed all of your points. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Eewilson... pending other reviews

Pending other reviews (sources, etc.), I support. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, and related things. It's a long article, so likely to take it in pieces.

  • Wow, this whole event was a sad circus of error and hell. I will never forget it. :( Continuing later...

Eewilson (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[reply]

Without source review, it appears factual without POV or OR. I did not study the relevance of any of the prose, any needs for editing or rewrite, or sources.

Eewilson (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

General
  • Is there a reason why we have both this article and STS51-L? It seems that the two could be merged.
    I think there could be differences between the articles. Doing a quick skim of STS-51-L, there's not much information that isn't in the Challenger disaster page, but the page could, in theory, have more information about the mission itself (experiments, crew, crew selection, training, etc.), much like how there are separate pages for STS-107 and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. I understand there are differences in that comparison, as STS-107 was an entire mission that ended in disaster while STS-51-L only lasted for 73 seconds, but I think there is information that belongs on an STS-51-L page but not the disaster page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It falls in between STS-107 (which went for two weeks, and for which two articles makes sense) and Apollo 1 (which never left the ground and has only one article) but obviously closer to the latter. Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it jarring that "O-ring concerns" comes before "Space Shuttle mission" but maybe that's just a matter of taste.
Lead
O-rings
Space Shuttle mission
Recovery of debris and crew
Public response
  • Indent Roger Commission so "U.S. House Committee report" is not a subheading
    I think Rogers Commission belongs as a top-level heading due to its significance as the official investigation of the disaster. The reason the House investigation is a sub-header is that it appears to mostly be a review of the Rogers Commission rather than a completely separate investigation. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Johnson Space Center
    Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASA response
Media
  • "General Kutyna" -> Kutyna"
    Shortened. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2009, Allan McDonald, along with space historian James Hansen, published his memoir Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster.[91][2] McDonald's book focused on his personal involvement" Having jsut said he didn't write it, this read oddly. Suggest: "In 2009, Allan McDonald published his memoir written with space historian James Hansen, Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster, which focused on his personal involvement"
    Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 I have addressed your points. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

I did a thorough read through of the article as GA reviewer, and the further improvements since then take it to FA level. I just have one observation:

  • A film, The Challenger Disaster, was released on January 25, 2019; it depicted fictional characters participating in the decision process to launch.

This directly follows a line about a different production also called The Challenger Disaster, which is slightly confusing. Naming the film maker and using active voice would fix this. —Kusma (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't come up with a good way to convert this to the active voice; I kept getting stuck on how to say "released" as media cannot release itself. But I added the director for the 2019 movie; I couldn't find the director for the BBC movie from a reliable source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine now. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Neopeius

Lead
O-Ring Concerns

I feel like this section throws the reader into the article abruptly. Perhaps 1. renaming the section "Pre-mission concerns (O-Ring issues)" and 2. An introductory sentence to the section: "Almost from conception, the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters, particularly the O-Ring reinforcements for each of their four segments, were noted as an item of concern." Or something along those lines.

I'm not a fan of the new section title; I think that makes it seem just like STS-51-L specific terms (as discussed under "decision to launch") and this should be specifically about issues with O-rings that were noted and discussed prior to STS-51-L. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think your version of the intro throws a lot of information at the reader without explaining it. I've tried to think of a good way to lead with the O-rings, but I keep feeling like the paragraph then has to backtrack to discuss things that were mentioned in the intro (What does an O-ring do in an SRB? What do the SRBs do for the Space Shuttle?). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring may not provide a backup to the primary O-ring,
In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring could not be relied on as a backup to the primary O-ring,
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot has blown past the primary O-ring
In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot had blown past the primary O-ring
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch at the time
The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch to date
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Space Shuttle Mission

No issues

Decision to Launch
  • Suggest deleting the first sentence of the first paragraph, moving the next two sentences to start the next paragraph, and moving the last two sentences to the start of the fourth paragraph.
    I kept first sentence and brought it to the next paragraph, but otherwise made this change. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest then deleting The weather forecasts predicted record-low temperatures for a Space Shuttle launch so from the second paragraph (which is now part of the first paragraph). Make "A conference call was set up on the evening of January 27..." its own sentence.
    Change made. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Launch and failure
Prospect of Crew Escape
  • Launch escape systems were considered during the Space Shuttle's development
Launch escape systems had been considered during the Space Shuttle's development
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery of debris and crew

No issues

Public Response
White House Response
  • Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech.
Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials had suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media Coverage
  • To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA arranged for many US children to view the launch live at school.
To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA had arranged for many US children to view the launch live at school.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rogers Commission
  • It also recommended that the Space Shuttle program's management should be restructured to keep project managers from being pressured by the Space Shuttle organization
Pressured to do/not to do what?
Added " pressured to adhere to unsafe deadlines" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the Space Shuttle's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates.
In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the Space Shuttle's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates had indicated.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. House Committee Report
  • The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission on the failed SRB field joint as the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB.
The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission that the failed SRB field joint was the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASA Response

No issues.

Legacy
  • Onizuka carried a soccer ball with his personal effects that was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough.
Onizuka had included a soccer ball with his personal effects; it was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media
Books
  • Trento's book argues that the Space Shuttle program was a flawed and politicized program from its inception.
Trento's book argues that the Space Shuttle program had been a flawed and politicized program from its inception.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Film and Television
  • The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka for an inaccurate portrayal of events.
The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka as an inaccurate portrayal of events.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further notes

This is a great article that just needs the above polishing. I have not done a citation review, and there are lots of citations to review. I leave that to the next person (I would not recommend support until that be done).

@Neopeius: I have addressed all of your points; thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Will review the review tomorrow so I have fresh eyes. :) Thanks for your quick work! --Neopeius (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personal note

I was nearly 12 on January 28, 1986. About an hour before launch, my dad was driving me to school, and a report came on the radio. The announcer noted that it was the coldest launch ever, and that technicians were chipping ice off the wings of the shuttle. I told my father, "They shouldn't launch today. It's too cold. Something's going to happen."

An hour later, our social studies teacher wheeled a TV into our classroom and we watched the replay of the disaster...

The disaster was a few years before I was born, so the Space Shuttle was the launch vehicle I grew up with. I learned about the Challenger disaster as a kid, but after reading so much about it, especially the news coming out immediately after the disaster, reminded me of all of the uncertainty and confusion in the news following the Columbia disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Neopeius (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Please run the External Links tool and fix your broken stuff.
    This was run not too long ago. I ran it just now and added archive links, but it doesn't look like it marked any refs as dead links. Is there a broken one in particular? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes AmericaSpace a reliable source? Looking for information on their editorial/fact-checking process, authoritativeness of authors, reference to them from other reliable source referring to them as authoriatiative and reliable.
    Replaced with a better source/removed information not in the new source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 13 is missing a publication/work.
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 15 - "Item no longer available"
    Not sure what the protocol is with a book's website going offline, since the book itself hasn't changed. Regardless, updated the reference to the newer edition of the book that is already used throughout the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 35–36, 43, and others - need consistent italicizing of The New York Times.
    Standardized. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles of newspapers and magazines in general are inconsistently formatted.
    I've standardized the news articles with one another. The scholarly journals should also be in line with one another. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Times I believe has the same paywall model as the LA Times (which you marked as requiring a subscription) so please make sure they're consistent.
    LA Times won't let someone without a subscription read the article, while the NY Times allows a few free articles without one. This is only from my personal testing, but using a cookie-free browser allowed me to read NY Times articles and no LA Times articles. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes collectspace.com a reliable source?
    Replaced with a better source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks good! --Laser brain (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Balon Greyjoy. I think the issues I saw with the External Links tool must have been temporary because it's coming up clean now. Please consider the source review concluded. --Laser brain (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster/archive2&oldid=1053445311"