Talk:Deke Slayton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wehwalt (talk · contribs) 13:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would mention in the first paragraph his role as Director of Flight Crew Operations, responsible for selecting the crews. That is probably what he is best known for today.

Good idea. Done.

"After three months of primary training, Slayton moved to Waco, Texas for basic flight training, where he BT-13 Valiant." an incompletely expressed thought here.

I added "flew the" to make it complete.

"After completing training, he was assigned to the 340th Bombardment Group, and departed for World War II on ship out of Newport News, Virginia." I might say departed for the Atlantic Theatre of operations or some such, rather than departed for WWII. And I'd suggest "by ship from Newport News" rather than the way you have it.

I made this change. Only difference from your suggestion is that I said European theater vs. Atlantic theater

" his ship travelled to Naples, Italy. While traveling near the Strait of Gibraltar, their ships ..." although I have no doubt there was a convoy, I might clean up whether you intend to focus on one ship or the group.

I changed "his ship" to "his convoy"

"separated from the Army" is not the term "discharged" more commonly used?

Coming from my own experience, "separated" tends to imply that it was a decision you made, whereas "discharged" is the military showing you the door. But you're right, I think "discharged" is more commonly accepted outside of the military for being getting out, so I made the change.

"At the start of his assignment in Germany, Slayton applied to the Air Force Test Pilot School (TPS), but was rejected to complete his three-year tour." I am not sure what "rejected to complete his three-year tour" means.

Bit of a quick fix, but I changed it to "but was rejected on the basis that he had to complete his current three-year assignment." The point being that TPS rejected him because the Air Force required him to complete his assignment in Germany; they didn't want him leaving sooner after he started. I'll try and think of better wording.

Will resume with his NASA career.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" Slayton was notified of his selection to join the Mercury Seven." He was notified he had been selected as an astronaut, since I imagine the name Mercury Seven came later.

Fixed.

"he was neighbors with Gus Grissom and Wally Schirra.[1][2]:66, 69–75" I would signal these were also Mercury Seven astronauts.

Added

"In early 1962, NASA Administrator James Webb opened an investigation in Slayton's atrial fibrillation." I would imagine "investigation in" should be "investigation into"

Done.

"NASA leadership" I would think, more commonly, "NASA management"

Fixed. I was being dumb and letting Air Force words slip in.

"but NASA leadership rejected the proposal because of the potential risks of the operation.[9]" I might cut the word "potential". I don't see that it adds anything.

Yep, I was just being redundantly redundant. In this case, "risk" and "potential" both imply that something might go wrong with the operation. Removed.

When did Slayton get promoted to full Director of Flight Crew Operations? Pretty sure it was after 1965 because I have the no-bootlegging order he gave and it refers to him as Assistant Director? By the way, who was/were the directors he served under?

Not sure exactly. I don't have the books I used available right now. According to the citation I added, 1966 is when he became the director

I think you can make do without it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot more can be said about how he selected the astronauts, both the rotation, back up, skip two, prime crew and also the philosophy that any crew can fly any mission. Specifically, more can be said about his selection of the Apollo 11 crew. This in my view stands a good chance of being why the reader is consulting the article. Also anything that can be said about his role in Apollo 13. You might even throw in a reference to his firing the Apollo 15 astronauts from being backups for 17 when he found out about the envelopes.

Done.

And I think there should be more on the way he did his job. He was there in Mission Control at every key moment of the mission. He was there when Apollo 1 happened and almost was sitting in the capsule to observe. He's discussed quite a lot in Chaikin's book.

Done.

"condo" I would say condominium

Fixed. That's a word that I forget is short for something.

"Slayton was a close friend of fellow astronaut Gus Grissom, and was in the Cape Canaveral LC-34 blockhouse during the Apollo 1 fire.[2]:185, 189" this seems ill-placed in this section and more related to his professional work.

I intentionally chose to put it in the personal section, as I didn't have a good way to put it into his NASA management section, but felt that it was important enough because of his relationship with Grissom.

That's it. If you think I'm pushing too far above GA standards--as you know, I'm a FAC guy--let me know. Most of it reads well, it just that I feel it needs more in the Apollo area.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a lot of the sourcing is to books. Should they not have page numbers as part of the reference?

I prefer to use the page number after the inline citation using {{rp|(page number(s))}}. Personal preference, but I like how it looks as it reduces the number of sources in the reference section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I have addressed the minor points/wording suggestions you brought up. Thanks for doing this review! The two points that I have skipped for now are the big ones about expanding on Slayton's managerial time. I am currently out of town for work, and didn't bring my astronaut biographies (rookie move, am I right?). I couldn't find any suitable sources doing a quick Google search, so I think my best option is to wait to address those points until I get back home next weekend, and can get back in the books. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I am back home, and have updated the article with information about crew assignments and Slayon's time in management. Good call with using A Man on the Moon; I completely forgot about that as a resource. Please let me know what you think; I felt that my additions contained important information, but turned into a bit of a laundry list of his major crew (re)assignments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"He established a rule that commanders and command module pilots must have previous experience with orbital rendezvous, but allowed rookie astronauts to serve as lunar module pilots." Obviously he must have revoked this rue at some stage as the last five CMPs were space rookies.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. I had put that in, thinking that I would later add that for Apollo 13 onward he didn't follow that rule, but forgot about it. Just went through Chaikin's and Slayton's books, and can't find any information about when/why he decided to allow rookie astronauts to serve as CMP, so I think that sentence will cause confusion in that it's a rule that only applied to 2/7 lunar missions.

I might doublecheck the bit about Shepard and Apollo 14. I thought the story was Shepard wanted 13 and Slayton was willing to go along but he got reversed by higher-ups who felt Shepard needed more training time.--Wehwalt (talk)

I expanded on that a bit. I originally forgot to mention the Apollo 13 bit about Shepard, and just focused on the decision for him to command.

@Wehwalt: Corrections made! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Was Slayton the oldest astronaut to that point when he flew?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I"ve passed it. I'd continue looking for information on the NASA years. For example, from what I've read, he ran a tight ship and the astronauts weren't always thrilled about it. But excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a difficult time finding objective views of his time in management. He's mentioned in almost every biography, but I feel like there's not much to go on besides personal opinion in a lot of them.

I can believe it. He and Worden really took shots at each other in their respective memoirs, for example. But what I was thinking was newspaper feature stories, if any can be found.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]