Wikipedia:Featured article review/Glynn Lunney/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [1].

Glynn Lunney

Notified: MLilburne, Wikiproject Science and academia Wikiproject Moon WikiProject Spaceflight, noticed 2022-07-19

I am nominating this featured article for review because the lead is too short and omits discussion of sections in the body, and because WP:Primary references are in use. Desertarun (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary references aren't a problem if they're used appropriately (I haven't looked at the article's usage of them, so can't make a statement on the appropriateness of the referencing). Hawkeye7 is the most likely to work on this, but they've still got Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hanford Site/archive1 up and are fairly busy anyways. If Hawkeye has any interest in working on this one, IMO the FAR timeline should be extended out long enough to get Hanford pushed over the hump and still give time for this one. I don't want to see FAR become a "clock-'em-up" basic auto-delist except for the absolutely most deficient, so we need to give time allowances for situations like this and Hanford where it's most likely to be one editor working on multiple. Hog Farm _Talk 19:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing missing from my original URFA notice was that, when Lunney died in 2021, a number of new sources (obits) came out that need to be reviewed and possibly incorporated. (I will try to get to Hanford this week, now that visitors have left.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can take this one on. It doesn't seem to have too many problems. I am very busy at the moment, and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hanford Site/archive1 has been going for five months now. Some people wanted me to look at Omaha Beach but that would be a much bigger project and I cannot see myself having that much time until later in the year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a pass through the article. Fixing some referencing problems. Dealt with some dead references and some marked incorrectly as dead. Incorporated some material from the obits into the article. Added a couple of images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to give this a read through later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 21:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 have you considered adding anything from the interview in external links? I thought some of it interesting ... it's in four parts (short). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't available in my location. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The center was a part of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), a United States federal agency founded to promote aeronautical research. Cooperative students at NACA took part in a program that combined work and study, providing a way for them to fund their college degrees while gaining experience in aeronautics." - not in source
Added additional sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It was during these years that Lunney became the protege of flight director Chris Kraft, a relationship that would last some twenty years" - I don't think we can say the relationship lasted 20 years using that particular sources, as it is from 1968 which is early in the 20-year period
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" this was his first experience with uncrewed spacecraft" - I thought he'd worked with the uncrewed Gemini 2?
I noticed this one when I added the bit about Gemini 2. It needs re-wording somehow. The idea was that Gemini was a crewed spacecraft even though Gemini 2 was an uncrewed mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "satellites". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content looks generally fine, this is more of a first pass than anything else. Hog Farm _Talk 01:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a pass through the article. Fixing referencing problems. Dealt with dead references and some marked incorrectly as dead. Incorporated material from the obits into the article. Added a couple of images. Responded to issues presented. Suggest closing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close w/o FARC I guess. I had a read-through and didn't see anything glaring. Hog Farm _Talk 01:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close w/o FARC, issues addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 could you please enter a bolded declaration for the benefit of the Coords? @Buidhe and Z1720: for a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close w/o FARC All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.