Talk:Robert J. Cenker/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RadioFan (talk · contribs) 19:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

There are still a few to many issues in this article for it to rise to GA status. Readers aren't left wanting but, in its current form, doesn't approach the quality of a professional encyclopedia.

The article should focus on Cenker but there is a lot of material about that one mission he flew. While this is certainly a part of his story, this biography should focus on the aspects of the mission he was involved in (such as the RCA satellite deployment) and not duplicate the mission article.

The article is a bit repetitive as well. While the fact that Cenker's lone mission was the one immediately before the Challenger disaster is part of the story, especially since civilians like Cenker were not included in the the next dozen crews, that fact needs to be mentioned only once, and in that context. The current article mentions that STS-51-L was the next to launch after STS-61-C 4 times. --RadioFan (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review...

• Regarding your comment "in its current form, (it) doesn't approach the quality of a professional encyclopedia." is subjective. On what specific basis? What could make it so?
• On the specific point you made about repetition, the only repetitive part I can find (besides the lede which is a summary) is the sentence "Cenker and Magilton trained with career astronauts as well as other Payload and Mission Specialists, including those scheduled for the next scheduled flight, that of the ill-fated Challenger mission..." before the main part discussing Challenger and the ramifications. That sentence was only to make the point about the co-training (and allowing me to use the photo cited) in the primary section, Spaceflight experience. (That photo is the only proof I could find of the training pairing.) Why is that repetitive? Or are there other items?
• Regarding your comment "The article should focus on Cenker but there is a lot of material about that one mission he flew..." Not sure what the point is. Is there a typo in your comment? If you are asking for more specifics on the mission or Bob's role in it, I could find none documented. RobP (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Other comments

RadioFan, since this is your first GA review, you may not be aware that GA reviews should be directly based on the GA criteria. It doesn't seem as though you have examined the article in that light, nor noted any issues in that regard. You'll want to review the GA nomination instructions, and there are pointers there to useful guides on reviewing potential GAs.

For example, your first comment is that the article doesn't approach the quality of a professional encyclopedia. But that isn't part of the GA criteria. Featured Articles are supposed to have prose that rises to that level. Good Articles are supposed to be "clear and concise" and a number of other things, but not professional level. (You should point out things like grammatical errors or typos as part of your review.) There are others of the "well-written" criteria that you haven't covered, including the Wikipedia Manual of Style section on article leads. For an article of this size, one or two paragraphs are indicated, and no significant fact should be in the lead that isn't in the body of the article (there are several).

RobP, there are a huge number of inline source citations in the lead, including a block of five at the end. In general, unless you have a quote or are giving a fact that is likely to be challenged or controversial, these citations should be given in the body of the article where the information is covered in typically greater depth. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the feedback. I tried to take care of the citations issues as well as making some body text changes to ensure everything in the lead reflects what is elsewhere. Please check to see if I missed anything. I also want to point out that RadioFan has made edits to the article while engaged in the GA. I thought this was not to be done by a GA reviewer. Am I wrong? Some edits were constructive, but one was very problematic and I had to revert it. The removed text was the item in the article reflected in the approved DYK hook. The text was removed for the stated reason that it was wrong, but it was not, as I said in my unanswered rebuttal. (The veracity of the hook as reflected in the specified reference had also been verified by the DYK reviewer who approved the DYK.) RadioFan also made an odd suggestion on the DYK Approval page saying that the hook should be changed to point at a different article instead of the Cenker one (if I understood the comment correctly). An unnecessary comment about the GA review having issues was also included, and I fear this might impact the DYK completion. Please see [1] and let me know if the DYK is now in jeopardy. Thanks! RobP (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Approaching the quality of a professional encyclopedia comes from the WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Spaceflight assessment guides and is common to most projects. These guides also require that the article has no obvious problems. I am concerned that heavy focus on events only tangentially related to the subject of the article is a problem here, to the point that it could confuse readers.

The single mission that Cenker flew is relevant and should be covered but with a focus on Cenker's contributions. 1/3rd of the content in the experience section generically covers the mission. This is already detailed in STS-61-C and STS-51-L and adds little to this biographical article. Similarly, 1/3rd of the lead section covers a mission Cenker was not a part of.

That STS-51-L Challenger mission is worthy of a single mention, in that it made him the last civilian on an STS crew for nearly 4 years and time training with that crew. However, the article references Challenger, which Cenker never flew on, more than the orbiter he did fly on (Columbia). This will leave some readers with the wrong impression.

The Early life and education, Pre-spaceflight career and Post-spaceflight sections are well written and cited and read very well. Some copyediting is still needed in the 4th, 5th & 8th paragraphs in Spaceflight experience section to bring the focus back on Cenker and his involvement and less generically on the missions. Edits I began making to return the focus to the subject of the article were reverted by the nominator with concerns that the DYK nomination might be endangered. I've not made edits since and brought this discussion to the article's talk page as well as sharing my thoughts on both the GA and DYK noms.

Three contributors to the Wikipedia spaceflight project have assessed the article as B. Greater focus on the subject of the article can raise it to GA. I've also requested reviews from the Biography and Spaceflight projects to hopefully get some additional editor's eyes on this article. . RadioFan (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Stating that "Three contributors to the Wikipedia spaceflight project have assessed the article as B" as justification it does not deserve a GA rating is just a total misrepresenting of the facts here: The first contributor was me stating that I changed it from Start to a B after I published the re-write. Clearly if I could I would have given it a GA if I was allowed to. The second was someone from the project verifying that my (probably out-of-turn) upgrade to a B was acceptable (at my request). They were not asked if it should go through a GA review, just if my upgrade was OK. The third was RadioFan. Except for RadioFan, no one else was stating it didn't deserve a GA. And as for the point RadioFan will not let go of, that I used the "End of Innocence" theme as central to the historic nature of the mission in retrospect... well again, we just disagree that this was inappropriate. I have had very positive feedback in general. I think readers are smarter than they are being given credit for, and will not be not be "confused" by the current content. RobP (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

RadioFan, I see you have yet to refer to the GA criteria specifically and are pointing at other sources rather than said criteria. Specific guidelines at WikiProjects are generally not relevant here at GA, and should not override GA's specifications. Mind you, it seems to me that your comments about the article's emphasis would indicate issues with the "Broadness" criteria, but have you even checked to see? If you aren't interested in reviewing by GA's own rules, you should consider withdrawing from this review and eschewing further GA reviews. Another reviewer can eventually be found who can do a complete GA review to the long-established criteria. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If consensus is that my concerns do not impact the quality of this article, then I'll of course respect that consensus. But so far only the nominator and I have weighed in on those concerns. BlueMoonset do you have any thoughts? Are they relevant to GA? --RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@RadioFan and Rp2006: Would you guys like me to do a GA review for this as a second opinion? I can work on that next week perhaps. Kees08 (Talk) 02:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kees08: I'm fine with that. RobP (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Starting with the first GA criteria, the prose in this article is not "clear and concise". I see disjointed sentences, and other problems. I'll do some editing in order to bring it up to B status. At present, though, it does not merit GA. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Disjointed sentences? Sounds subjective, but I am not even sure what that means. Please specify. RobP (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I am going to copy edit the article, feel free to revert or dispute my edits. Kees08 (Talk) 02:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Kees08: What has to be done to push this along? RobP (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I just need to make time for it. I have a lot going on IRL right now, so it has been tough. I think it needs a thorough copy edit, but other than that it would probably be good. Maybe submit a request to the guild of copy editors? I will try to copy edit it in the meantime, but as you can see my progress thus far has been pretty slow. Kees08 (Talk) 07:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Kees08, it has been nearly two months. Do you plan to review this nomination or not. If not, the best thing at this point would be to put this back into the pool of nominations awaiting reviewers, with no loss of seniority, in the hopes of finding someone else to conduct a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kees08 and BlueMoonset: Any update on this? RobP (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

RobP, this was put back into the pool of nominations awaiting reviewers without loss of seniority shortly after I posted my comment (and not done so by me); a new reviewer has yet to select the article. I'm going to archive this page so no one tries to continue the review here, since it's no longer active. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.