Wikipedia

Talk:Jeannette Piccard/GA2

< Talk:Jeannette Piccard
Latest comment: 14 years ago by SusanLesch in topic Jeannette Piccard GA Review

Jeannette Piccard GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago30 comments3 people in discussion

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

General:

  • The use of "Piccard" is confusing. WP:SURNAME is not entirely clear on this, it recommends using surname alone unless it will be confusing. In this case both the previous reviewer and I were confused, and I think the problem is that when only surname is used, we tend to think of the husband in a married couple, as old-fashioned and sexist as that may be. I would recommend using "Jean" and "Jeanette" whenever the two can possibly be confused. I think I got most of these already.

Lead:

  • Too short. An article of this size needs at least two substantial paragraphs of introduction, if not three.

Family and education:

  • "who had nine children" – who, the mother or the couple?
  • Roddenberry: this is better now, but generally, one-sentence paragraphs should be avoided. In fact, this is so peripheral to the subject – the article is after all about her, not about him – that it would perhaps be best to relegate it to a footnote.
  • "Jean Piccard took positions" - this is unclear, where did he take positions? Did he take several at the same time? It should be rewritten.

World's Fair 1933:

  • Generally speaking, this is a very long and detailed section, where the subject of the article doesn't really figure at all. GA criterion 3b says that the article should stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". That is not the case here; a short summary to provide background would be good, but this is excessive. It should probably be reduced and combined with the next section.
  • There are currently too many images, here; it leads to stacking on large screens. See WP:STACKING for tips on how to fix this, but at least one will probably have to go.
  • The opening sentence pre-empt the action a bit too much, it would be better to narrate events chronologically. First of all it should be said who built the balloon, how, why, and in what context (it should be mentioned that "Century of Progress" was also the name of the Expo.) Then the specifics of the balloon should be mentioned, and then its flight history.
  • "He did not have a license,[citation needed] unlike his brother Auguste who did." I’m not sure why there’s a [citation needed] tag in the middle of the sentence. If the given reference covers this, then it can be removed.
  • "and/or" is not good language, and it raises the question of singular or plural verb form. In this case, based on the source, "and" would be sufficient. Reference should wait until after the comma at least.
  • "Dow Chemical constructed the gondola designed by Auguste and Jean Piccard, Karl Arnstein[14] of Goodyear built the balloon of rubberized cloth[7] and Union Carbide provided the hydrogen." The mid-sentence references makes the sentence hard to read, try to structure it differently.
  • "Ballooning was a dangerous undertaking, partly because human lungs cannot function unaided over 40,000–50,000 feet (12,000–15,000 m), and partly because the lifting gas used, hydrogen, is highly flammable." – this appears as original research without any references.
  • Hawthorne Gray – also this story needs a reference.

Stratosphere flight:

  • "Forty-five thousand spectators came to see them go" – this starts in the middle of the story. Begin with what, when and where, then go into details.
  • "elm trees rather than on a farmhouse" – confusing, why would she want to land on a house? Again, it would be better to move reference to end of sentence, unless there is some pressing reason not to.
  • "Jeannette observed that the liquid oxygen stopped vaporizing as the balloon descended after the cabin doors were opened." – this sentence needs a comma, though I'm not sure where. It gets slightly different meanings depending on whether it goes after "vaporizing" or "descended".

Plastic balloons & Later life, death of Jean Piccard:

  • These are two very short sections, and should probably be combined for layout purposes. Also avoid short, one- or two-sentence paragraphs.
  • Cluster ballooning – this concept is introduced without any context.

Episcopal priest:

  • Listing all the ordinands is excessive, if any of them has independent notability then this can be mentioned.

Honors:

  • This all needs to be properly referenced, and links directly in the text are not the proper way of doing it.

Piccard family balloonists:

  • This is irrelevant, and should go.

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I finally got around to looking a this again. It looks much better now, there's only a couple of points I'd like to make:
  • The lead sentence saying she was the first woman in space is a bit dubious, since the definition has changed, and Tereshkova is today generally considered to hold that honour. I rewrote it to: "in her time considered the first woman in space." I hope this is acceptable.
  • The rewrite is fine. I had rewritten this because the editors of "Flying" magazine wrote a book in which they said Tereshkova "allowed" that Piccard was the "first woman in space". Since we say that later, I am happy with your change. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I discovered two dead links: #26:AEM Update and #41:St. Philips Episcopal Church Records; these need to be removed. If you can find replacements that would be good, though the information isn't particularly contentious. That's all! Lampman (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeannette_Piccard/GA2&oldid=339755126"