Talk:Jeannette Piccard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJeannette Piccard has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed
March 2, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 1, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Jeannette Piccard piloted a hydrogen balloon to the stratosphere for Jean Piccard, likely namesake of Captain Picard of Star Trek?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 23, 2018, October 23, 2021, October 23, 2022, and May 17, 2023.
Current status: Good article

GA passed[edit]

The article seems well written and well documented. My only suggestion is that it might be easier to read if there were less use of the single name "Piccard". I realize that it is normal in formal writing to refer to someone by last name, but when there are several people with the same last name under discussion, it gets confusing. For example, in the last paragraph of the "Family and education" section, the phrase "where Piccard was present for many of his lectures" made me wonder "How could he be absent from his own lecture"? Even in cases where it can reasonably be inferred which Piccard is being discussed, you're making the reader work harder than necessary.--Jwwalker 05:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

  • These two statements don't seem to be consistent. From World's Fair 1933: "The Century of Progress was built for Jean Piccard, who planned to fly it". From Pilot's license: "Jean and Jeannette Piccard planned a flight to the stratosphere, deciding he would concentrate on science and she would be pilot". --Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The World's Fair statement came before the realization that one of them would need a license. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that needs to be made clear then. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I looked for Paul Kipfer and Auguste Piccard who took off from Germany to the stratosphere to see if either one had a license. I found nothing free but one JSTOR article for sale. I daresay I would question the US Navy and Marines claims to the balloon until I decide to pay up. (You know, "only we can handle this".) -SusanLesch (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decided and it turned out to be worth buying. It says Auguste was a licensed pilot by graduate school, as well as a civilian volunteer with the Swiss army's observation balloon corps. So I take back my remark. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Centennial of Flight commission says Jean taught Jeannette how to fly. So perhaps he did have a license. I don't know. Added a fact tag to the article until I find out. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Book about the world's fair will be here Wednesday which I hope will answer this. It is a source in Wikipedia's article about Thomas Settle. (Book didn't help.) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know which is preferred these days, but the article uses both "U.S." and "US". Should pick one and stick with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are fine. I can choose U.S. and change them all that way. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The report archived in the university libraries special collection is dedicated on the flyleaf to Jean and Jeannette Piccard ...". Shouldn't that be "University Library's special collection ...", i.e, possessive rather than plural? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Episcopal priest: "Harold B. Robinson, diocese of Western New York ...". Was he the bishop, or just a regular member of the diocese? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to say that then. The image in that section needs a caption as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first image in the Balloon section has altext that says the balloon is landing, but the caption implies that it's taking off. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, thanks. I corrected the caption and forgot the alt text. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text says that Settle made the record-breaking flight, but the image caption says Settle and Fordney. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I see that the image is of the second flight, not the aborted first flight. This doesn't quite fit though: "Lt. Cmdr. Thomas (Tex) G. W. Settle of the U.S. Navy made the flight ...". Made what flight? The flight hasn't been mentioned before this. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "first" to read "the first flight". Does that take care of this question? I believe that what happened is that Jean's license was only good in Europe or Switzerland and that made Settle the pilot. Jean oversaw this flight (and did not fly it, though the U.S. Centennial commission states he did). (You can see him signing autographs in the video and the photo from it in his article.) Book reference here Wednesday. (Book didn't help.) -SusanLesch (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A children's book whose authors consulted with Jeannette answered this. It said Jean did not have a license. The only other possible source for this that I know of is coming from the downtown library in about a week.-SusanLesch (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also developed a frost-free window used on this flight, and later by the Navy and Air Force in the B-24 Liberator or B-26 Marauder." Shouldn't this be "... B-24 Liberator and B-26 Maurader"? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. I think that the planes were original research and that I meant "or" at the time. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bryn Mawr College Libraries has ...". That doesn't work. Should it be "Bryn Mawr College Library has ..."? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry Ford offered the use of his hangar and brought Orville Wright to observe a flight that year." What year? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

malformed ref[edit]

This ref from Jeannette Piccard#Legacy: <ref>{{cite web|title=Women in Transportation: Changing America’s History|url=http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/wmntrans2.pdf|format=PDF|date=March 1998|publisher=U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highways Administration|accessdate=January 18, 2010}}</ref> is malformed somehow, but for the life of me I can't figure out what's wrong with it. just so you don't have to flip back to the page to see it:

blah, blah[1]

  1. ^ "Women in Transportation: Changing America's History" (PDF). U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highways Administration. March 1998. Retrieved January 18, 2010. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 10 (help)

as you can see, the linking isn't working right, but the title and url parameters look perfectly fine to me... does anyone see what the issue might be?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I rewrote it, and that seems to have done the trick. I'm still not sure what the problem was, but it's at least working now.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First woman in space[edit]

Greetings. Somebody has a disagreement with this claim. Here is my source: Editors of Flying magazine, Ziff Davis (1976). Sport Flying. Charles Scribner's Sons. p. 153. ISBN 0684144948. Here is what they say, "Jean was Don's father; Jean's wife, Jeannette, piloted a balloon of Auguste and Jean's making to 57,579 feet in 1934, becoming the first woman in space, a claim allowed even by Valentina Tereshkova." I object to making a science lesson out of the lead in this biography. The picture caption here goes on at length already! -SusanLesch (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite the specific issue of "Sport Flying"? I see the source provided for the first lead sentence,[1] which says that the daughter told Tereshkova, "My mother is Jeannette Piccard, who piloted a balloon to 57,000 feet in 1934, more than two miles into Physiological Space." (emphasis added). The point is that "space" in this context, with no qualification, stands for "outer space", and there is no reliable source equating "physiological space" to "outer space". The same source in the lead also says, "After Jean Felix died in 1963, Jeannette became a consultant with NASA, and some there said she was the first woman in space, as "Physiological Space" was considered to begin around 45,000 to 50,000 feet. This claim was generally dropped after the USSR's Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman ever to orbit the Earth later that year." So it is misleading to just say "first woman in space" in the lead, without quotes and qualification. Crum375 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I can't cite an issue. It is a book, ISBN 0684144948. I don't think we are getting anywhere here. But I do object to repeating these distinctions twice in this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if some people said it, it was clearly tongue-in-cheek, since nobody seriously considered that altitude "outer space". For example, do you have a source showing any male who's flown to that altitude was considered a "man in space"? I agree that over-explaining this issue is redundant, but the lead should be able to stand on its own, and we can't make a misleading statement in it. Crum375 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Men broke records like clockwork. In the space of two years, Auguste Piccard, the Russians, Settle and Fordney and Stevens and Anderson survived. I looked and will keep looking but didn't find a source. Please find someplace else to make this essay. Like howabout the caption of the image of the atmosphere? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead, and its first paragraph, are to some extent the essence of the article. This should be able to stand on its own, and we can't make misleading claims there only to correct them later, in the caption of an image down below. We need to make sure that anything we say, esp. in that crucial lead context, is well sourced and not confusing or misleading. This is not an "essay", it's explanation that Wikipedia must provide well sourced information and avoid confusing our readers. Crum375 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "high altitude" to "balloonist" in the first lead sentence, and moved the "woman in space" phrasing to the second lead paragraph, with additional explanatory details, based on the New Mexico Museum of Space History source.[2] Comments are welcome. Crum375 (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My work has been reverted as "not sensible". It would be helpful to explain why. Crum375 (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the lead going into a long explanation. I reverted to before SlimVirgin's lead edit to see if that version would be agreeable. Then you apparently added a long explanation, which Malleus reverted (and I agree with that decision). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I did is to add "high altitude" as a qualifier to "balloonist" in the opening sentence, which requires no explanation, is non-controversial, and stands on its own. Then, in the next paragraph, where it already goes into the NASA details, I added the fact, per source, that before Tereshkova went into space, some at NASA described JP as the "first woman in space". I agree that long explanations in the lead are bad, and I think the way I had it strikes a reasonable balance and reflects exactly what the source says. As it stands now, it is simply incorrect. She was not called that "in her time", whatever that means. It was during her initial stint at NASA, before Tereshkova went up, that some NASA people called her that (and being called "space woman" by NASA people, working on their own space program, carries more clout). Crum375 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What that wound up being was, "While working for NASA in 1963, she was described by some there as "the first woman in space" (since the stratosphere was considered to be "Physiological Space"), before Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova flew into space later that year." Which is about 99% explanation. I think this is out of place and belongs in the article's "Legacy" section so that the lead can summarize the article, not vice versa. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Susan, I don't know how to present the "first woman in space" another way, which would still properly reflect what the sources say. As I read the NM museum history source, it specifically says that she was called "woman in space" by NASA people after her husband died and before Tereshkova went up, and that they called her that because they considered the stratosphere to be "physiological space". This is what the sources say, but the current article version makes it seem as if there were no qualifications, and it is unclear when she was called that, by whom, and for how long. Crum375 (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source. The publisher is relatively better than the museum/hall of fame, who inducted her posthumously and the hall of fame description dates to 1998. Will Google Books let you read it? In several contemporary accounts of the exploit, Jeannette Piccard is described as "the first woman in space". -SusanLesch (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I used this source when I added these words to the second paragraph in the lead. I can live with it in the first paragraph too. Note that I still have {{fact}} tags in the caption where it is claimed that "[NASA] qualified the Century of Progress as a spacecraft and flight over 40,000 feet (12,000 m) space travel". Crum375 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure vessel[edit]

This is not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that to fly into the stratosphere in a balloon you need a pressure vessel. It would also seem to me that designing, building and operating such a vessel, fit for human habitation, esp. in the early 1930's, would have been very difficult. I would also think that highly specialized training would be required to operate such a vessel while controlling a balloon. All these are major challenges which were obviously undertaken and overcome by the Piccards, yet I can't find any information about any of these issues in the article, and a pressure vessel is not even mentioned. Was there in fact a pressure vessel? And if so, is there a comprehensive source describing its construction and operation? Crum375 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have lost sight of the fact that this article is about Jeannette Piccard, not the Century of Progress or its construction. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fatuorum, please focus on the message, not the messenger. The article is about JP, and at the moment roughly a third of the article is devoted to her ballooning, focusing on her record flight. The section I am addressing is Jeannette_Piccard#Stratosphere_flight, which is focused on the stratosphere flight, while not telling the reader anything about the pressure vessel, or otherwise how they survived at that altitude. Crum375 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are a master at missing the point Crum375, you should give classes. Yes, a significant amount of this article is about Piccard's ballooning – not unexpectedly considering that was a major part of her life – but you want to write about the technical details of her balloon, which is not appropriate for a biography. And don't give me any more of your civility guff, I'm just not interested. As far as I'm concerned you have become seriously disruptive and an impediment to this article's promotion; that's far worse than a little imagined "incivility". --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fatuorum, I ask you again to please focus on the message. Trying to improve an article, esp. a FAC, is not "disruptive", it is helpful. Now, let's focus on the issue. Yes, this is a biography, but in this case, perhaps 50% (and arguably more) of the subject's notability is due to one event, one accomplishment. So it makes sense to focus on it, as the article properly does at the moment, devoting about a third of the content to that event. Now, since the event was very notable, we need to focus on its most exceptional point (recall that women had gone up in balloons in the 18th century), which is the stratospheric altitude reached. Being able to survive, and maneuver a balloon at 57,000 feet, using early 1930s technology, with apparently minimal support (and some resistance) is a huge accomplishment. But it is also a puzzle at the moment: we say she (or they) did it, but we don't explain how. Imagine an article about the first man in space, without mentioning any details about the space capsule or space suit. The pressure vessel in this case, assuming there was one, would be key to their success, and a cornerstone of their achievement. Yet we hear nothing about it, or whether there was one. And we have no details whatsoever about how they were able to survive in the human-hostile stratosphere, only that they somehow managed to pull it off. That is simply incomplete, and leaves educated people wondering what really happened. Crum375 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They did, of course, use a pressure vessel, also called pressure gondola, and apparently it's on display in the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.[3] Would it make sense to upload the image under fair use? Crum375 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a nice photo but to tell you the truth I'm not sure which gondola and which Piccard it is. If you can figure that out, feel free to add this picture. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest that maybe a Wikipedian in Chicago could snap a nice picture for us, like the copyrighted one (which I have made visible in EL -- not sure why it was hidden). I'll try to verify that PD photo against the museum one, and if they are the same, we can use it pending a better one. Crum375 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I verified (by comparing small details) that the PD image shows the same exhibit as this, and added it to the article. I think the latter image shows more detail, so it would still be nice if a Wikipedian in the Chicago area could shoot a better photo, similar to the museum's version. Crum375 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Spoke to groups"?[edit]

I hesitated to mention this trivial point, but I will. This has always bothered me a little bit: "After her husband's death in 1963, she became a consultant for NASA, where until 1970 she spoke to groups about the space program." Who were these "groups"? NASA employees, members of the public on a visit, what was she telling them? "Spoke to groups" just sounds so strange. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can reword this. NASA's press release said she would advise Gilruth and work on a program to keep the "nation's scientific community and the general public informed of events and results of manned space flight development at MSC". Where the word "groups" came from I don't recall (but it sounds like my shorthand). -SusanLesch (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times[edit]

I am getting tired of people changing what this source says. "It was the first such flight made in the United States in which the balloon remained under control for the entire flight and it was the first successful stratospheric flight made through a layer of clouds." -SusanLesch (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obituary, and obits (even in the NYT) are not that precise when it comes to technical aviation records. In this case, it sounds very contradictory to our other sources. First, "It was the first such flight made in the United States in which the balloon remained under control for the entire flight": we know that Settle and Fordney flew the very same balloon just the year before, under control for the entire flight, and flew it higher. So how can this one be "the first such flight"? And second, "it was the first successful stratospheric flight made through a layer of clouds", would perhaps be ok in conjunction to "first woman who flew to the stratosphere", but not in lieu of it. When I added the combination, you removed it, which would make it seem like other women had done this before, but not via cloud layer. Also, the quote you provide here makes it sound like these were not woman-specific records, which does not match the wording in the article. Crum375 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that The New York Times even mentions woman-specific records. I wrote the "first person" which is unambiguous. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every word counts in aviation records, so we have to be extremely careful not to change the meaning by paraphrasing. There are two separate claims here. The second one could be used in theory, if properly phrased. But the first one seems plainly wrong, if your quote is reproduced exactly, contradicting numerous reliable sources, which would cast doubt on both claims. Crum375 (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesosphere and other spheres in graphic Earth image[edit]

acceptable?
replacement?
confusing?

I am having a problem understanding this image. There are various altitudes marked on it, referring to corresponding "spheres", including the mesosphere. In the mesosphere article there is a reference which defines (via hyperlinks) the various spheres and provides their heights in km above sea level. Unfortunately, these heights, provided by a reliable source, don't match the ones in the graphic, which was apparently produced by Wikipedians, with no source that I can find. I am trying to make sense of it, but at the moment it just seems wrong (or else I am just confused). The altitudes in the alt text are also not matching the source. For now, I removed the "mesosphere" mention in the caption, and left the image. But unless there is some way to reconcile these varying numbers, the image would have to be removed. AFAICT, this is what the source says: troposphere (0-12 km), stratosphere (12-50 km), mesosphere (50-80 km), ionosphere (80-550 km), and exosphere 550-10,000 km). Compare this to what the image graphic says: tropo: 0-10 km, strato: 10-30 km, meso: 30-50 km, thermo: 50-400 km, exo: 400+ km. According to the source, iono + exo make up the thermo, which adds to the confusion in the graphic, where not only the numbers are off, but also the meanings. Any help here would be appreciated. I will keep looking for more reliable sources in the meanwhile. Crum375 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spheres vary in height all over the globe. I can't help you there. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, what I see is reasonable consistency among the reliable sources (see below), yet the Earth graphic with its legend (and alt text) seems wrong. I have found another reliable source, also linked in the mesosphere article, which tracks the other source very closely (strato: 10/15-50 km,[4] meso: 50-70/80 km, and thermo 70/80+ km[5]). So that image appears to be clearly wrong. I am going to make it invisible for now, but if someone can show me why the image is correct despite the apparent contradiction with the two sources, I'll be happy to restore it. Crum375 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That image is definitely wrong. It was made by User:Bredk, who appears to be inactive since 2006. It's been transwikied to Commons though, so I've nominated it for deletion on Commons.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ohms law. I added a new image to this article. Hope it's right. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is better numerically, except for the top of the mesosphere which seems off (above sources say 70-80km, vs. 95-120km in the image). But its main problem is that it's hard to see the numbers (at least on my screen) and the entire image is too thin and tall. I think the original image is fine aesthetically, it just needs fixing. I could do it myself when I have some free time. Crum375 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a corrected version of the original image, seen on top. Comments? Crum375 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't vouch for the numbers, but the layout is better. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the numbers from this this source, which I cited on the image upload page. I have added the image to the article with the previous caption, and redid the alt text. Crum375 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Hello. I don't have time to babysit this article. Please do not add a nb about the Concorde, which isn't necessary. The sources are dubious. Anybody can register a website. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, modern commercial airliners cruise up to 8 miles (13 km) above sea level (MSL), and the Concorde supersonic jet carried passengers at more than 11 miles (18 km) MSL.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Aircraft Historical and Future Developments Accessed February 24, 2010
  2. ^ Concorde - Information, www.famousplanes.info, accessed February 24, 2010
  3. ^ Facts About Concorde Accessed February 24, 2010
  4. ^ flightlevel350.com - Concorde Accessed February 24, 2010

Altitude comparison note[edit]

The average reader has no intuitive idea of what 5, 10, 15, or 50 miles high altitudes mean. The diagram we use is not to scale; even 50 miles high, if drawn to scale, would be so tiny as to be nearly invisible on it (about 1.2% of the Earth's radius). So we need to provide a perspective, and comparing these altitudes to modern airliner cruising levels, and the Concorde which was the highest flying passenger jet, makes sense. Doing it in a footnote next to the mention of the altitudes, rather than a dedicated section, makes sense since this is a biography article. Crum375 (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the actual numbers, these are all non-contentious. There are lots of reliable sources, some already cited. If any specific point is unclear, or not properly sourced, please point it out and we can get even more sources. Crum375 (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I don't want sources to cite a non-essential note. The formatting doesn't match the rest of this article, which is giving me problems because this article is in FAC. I have posted at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Help_with_enthusiast_admin asking for help. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, getting other opinions would be helpful. If you point out which specific sources you have a problem with, we can add more sources, and/or start a thread on WP:RSN, and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation for additional input. Crum375 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've been very patient with Crum375 Susan; I'd have torn all my hair out by now. Crum375, just lay off and go find something else to do. Your input has teetered on the verge of disruption right from the start of your involvement with this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article still needs some improvement, and I will do my best to help. I prefer to fix things instead of just criticizing. Crum375 (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been here for almost three years. I don't have time to deal with your additions and this article's FAC at the same time. It already went through a thorough source review. To ask for a repeat is using up precious user time. Your addition of this note will not pass. Wikipedia has other things to do. Crum375, please leave me alone so I can concentrate on what has to be done. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only noticed the article when it was posted on the FAC page. I think FAs need to be of better quality than average, and this is why I am trying to improve it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and everyone is welcome to help, with every article. If you have a specific issue with any of my edits, please let me know and we can address it. Regarding the specific issue of adding perspective about altitudes in a footnote, I explained my rationale above. If you disagree with it, let's discuss it. If you feel any specific source is not reliable enough, there are plenty more, since these are all well-known non-contentious items. Let's work together to get this article to be as good as it can be. Crum375 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. I am completely exhausted by your participation and by the nasty exchange on my talk page (which shouldn't have been there to start with). If you had an interest or knowledge of this subject, then two or three years ago would have been the time to work on it. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never written a single "nasty" post on Wikipedia, so I am not sure what you mean. I posted on your talk page to try to explain my rationale for the "woman in space" issue, not to be nasty or impolite to anyone. I do have some interest in aviation records and women in aviation, and a bit of knowledge in both topics, but I rely on sources, not on my knowledge. The reason we publicize FA candidates on that page is to allow and encourage editors with fresh eyes to review the proposed articles. And it's never too late to improve an article; there is no time limit. Crum375 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another first?[edit]

AFAICT, she was also the first woman to fly a pressurized cabin beyond the atmosphere, and possibly even the first to fly one anywhere. The problem is, even though it's kind of logically obvious, the sources I see are only for the first American men to do so (Ryan, p. 49). I think it's an important record, because sealed pressure cabins are essential for space flight, and the next woman we know flew one beyond the atmosphere was Tereshkova. If anyone can find a source for this, it would be greatly appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jeannette Piccard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jeannette Piccard/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Free images, two Smithsonian photos, and Internet citations are in place. Rated B-class and nominated for GA. To get to A-class and FA someday, the Auguste Piccard talk page says there may be a NASA video though I could not find it at NASA or Google video 2007-02-02. -Susanlesch 14:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeannette Piccard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jeannette Piccard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jeannette Piccard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeannette Piccard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitable "women's altitude records"[edit]

I've seen this page has a wikitable on female altitude records. Can we make a wikitable on all humans' altitude records as well? E.g. in the page Auguste Piccard who along with Max Cosyns were surpassed by the USSR-1 crew who were surpassed by the Century of Progress crew and so on? 2001:4BC9:A43:3759:44B2:43E7:73C5:48CB (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeannette_Piccard&oldid=1207547800"