Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Disintegration photo

Is there, anywhere, in existence a high quality photo of the disintegration, with size of at least 800x600? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwenger (talk • contribs) 00:54, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

2008 NASA report

In a report issued by NASA on 30 December 2008, it was revealled that the crew members died from either depressurization or trauma without regaining consciousness and that they knew for no more than a minute, if at all, that they were in grave danger. The cabin depressurized so quickly that the astronauts blacked out before they could lower their helmet visors, which would have started the flow of oxygen inside their pressure suits. At least one crewmember fought to restore control of the shuttle.

It was also concluded that:

  • The Columbia didn't have time to ready themselves. Some weren't wearing their safety gloves, and one wasn't wearing a helmet. New policies give the crew more time to prepare for descent.
  • The Columbia astronauts' safety harnesses malfunctioned during the violent descent. The harnesses on the three remaining shuttles have been upgraded.
  • The emergency air supply in the shuttle's successor won't require manual activation, as the shuttle's system does.

Should some or all of these details be added to the article? I have only this secondary source: NASA reports more details on Columbia, by Traci Watson, USA Today, 30 December 2008 I wonder does anyone have a primary source? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That'd be the Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report (16.3MB), which is in a footnote in the article, currently #30. I'm sure some more of this stuff should be added; the investigation might even warrant an article of it's own, like CAIB.
The info from the post-mortem examination of the crew remains was redacted from the publicly-released document (and a good thing too), but a close reading of the report very strongly suggests the crew perished from decompression sickness. It does categorically state that the decompression of the spacecraft "was lethal to the crew". jhf (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Well, #30 in the footnotes seems a very strange place for this particular article to put that particular source I'd certaInly agree that more detail is required in the text as to what happened to the crew. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I followed this episode very closely at the time and took the time to read the (internet published) emails from the NASA engineers in question, about denied requests to use DoD imaging (actually enabled via back channel favoured, but redacted on pressure from managers who would lose face): They were trying to avoid a NASA cover-up about their senior managers attitudes to ensuring astronaut safety (reprehensible IMHO, but I digress)... One of the things I remember reading in the press coverage was the discovery of a thigh bone, and a charred human skull in a helmet... So, if true, whether the astronauts survived sudden decompression is kind of immaterial... the subsequent destructive tumbling took them to pieces. I don't think the crew module came down in one piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.108.168 (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Size of foam piece contradiction

I see "a piece of foam insulation the size of a small briefcase" and "a suitcase-size piece of thermal insulation foam broke ". Which one is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.160.150 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no contradiction whatsoever. --89.0.250.239 (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Destroyed by Iraq?

I remember hearing in the news that when columbia was destryed Israelis were saying that it was shot down by Iraq to get back at the israeli fighter pilot aboard spaceship columbia at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.159.101 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't. The causes of the destruction are pretty well documented now. This theory is clearly WP:FRINGE and should not be put in the article. TJRC (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. The reason that this statement shouldn't be in the article is that it wasn't widely reported on, not because "it's fringe". Obviously it is not an even potentially valid theory -- and we wouldn't present it as such. But we can of course neutrally report on a widely discussed false accusation -- as such. --89.0.237.20 (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it strange that the video ends 4 minutes before disintegration? Where is the evidence?

And that it's precisely the part of the video showing their death that was destroyed? I think the article should discuss this more in depth. A video showing screaming, frying, dying astronauts would have enormeous complications for the public support of the space program, it seems there is a huge motive for NASA deleting it by 'accident'. What evidence is there that it was actually destroyed? The article should cover this too. T.R. 87.59.79.96 (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

While I see your point about such a video potentially reflecting poorly on NASA's reputation, I think that there would have been ways for them to keep it from the public other than claiming it was destroyed. Unless it's a notable conspiracy theory or point of speculation as to the mysteriousness of the tape's destruction or lack thereof, I don't think it should be mentioned in the article.Evanh2008 (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This struck me as very suspicious as well. I would like to see more information on these last four minutes, but I agree that Wikipedia can't host speculation without evidence. —Pie4all88 T C 18:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

NASA likely sustained more criticism from points of view like yours than if they were to show the whole thing, possibly including footage they did not want the public to see.

Folks, the invasion of superheated plasma into the crew compartment would kill the crew instantly AND ionize the uncoiled part of the tape or external layer of the hard drive. So you would not see "dying" astronauts - they would go in a second from being alive to being dead - and it's completely logical that the last part of the recording will be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.250.11 (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The missing portion of the video covers several minutes, during which the crew became acutely aware that things were going wrong. In fact, the video ends just seconds before the ground and shuttle crews received the first alert coming from the orbiter's left wing. At that point, due to the e-mail sent by Steve Stich regarding the foam strike on the left wing, it can be assumed that at least the commander and pilot were very well aware of the likely source of the problems. Last radio contact with the shuttle occured minutes after that point. So, yes, very much yes: That part of the video would have posed an immediate total PR disaster for NASA. Obviously, the ethically valid motivation to withhold that part of the video out of respect for the deceased and their families still stands, regardless of NASA's additional PR motive. --89.0.255.30 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any documented reason why the people who mis-managed the decision to withhold information from the flight crew, or not use the military ground camera to photo-inspect, or decided that the damage was insufficient to be dangerous were never indicted for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter? -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Explosion or not

The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster was the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia over Texas on February 1, 2003 during reentry,..."

It is my impression that the collapse began at, at least, California, or much further.


What about Admiral Hal Gehman, Harold Gehman?

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


But somewhere it was announced, that explosion happened over Palestina(Texas) town Texas.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-shuttle-explosion.htm

google results for ---shutle Columbia explosion---- 404 000 for shuttle columbia explosion. Ttturbo 09:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a popular internet meme at the time but was an urban legend. Knowing that the orbiter broke up somewhere over Texas, and with an Israeli astronaut aboard, picking a town called Palestine (or Palestina, depending on the chain email) and declaring it to have been the precise town was both seemingly meaningful and also very hard to disprove. Even some mainstream news services reported that, because NASA didn't know the exact spot where it happened at first, the breakup took quite a while, and at those altitudes Columbia could have been said to have been "above" hundreds of towns. So it gained a lot of traction, and to this day many people still believe it. While it might well have been intentionally spread by anti-Israel activists, there's no evidence I know of to support that.
The urbanlegend page you link doesn't discuss any of what you said. It instead debunks supposed photos of an Israeli satellite intentionally damaging the orbiter for sinister purposes unknown (the photos were actually from the movie Armageddon). 24.99.56.211 (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see what relevance a Google search has here.--chris.lawson 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Jon Harpold

I noticed that Jon Harpold - the NASA admin quoted in the article saying that the astronauts would be better off dying and not knowing - himself died of an apparent heart attack exactly one week after the first anniversary of the disaster. Not sure if it belongs in the article, or where to fit it in, but I thought it was interesting. --BRIAN0918 01:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A bad PowerPoint slide made the shuttle exploded?

Sorry if I violate any rule, I'm newcomer here. Anyway, I surprise that there is no information about a theory about the ugly bad design PowerPoint slide made the shuttle exploded. It's just a theory, I know, but I think it's worth to mention it if there is no evidence against it.

The theory is proposed by Edward Tufte http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001yB Ooker (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

What's up with the "Conspiracy Theory" section of this article? It doesn't fit the guidelines in any way, and the "video source" is a video from a YouTube channel called "The Faking Hoaxer", but then uploaded by a different person and used as "proof".

Can somebody remove that section, please? I have never done any edits, and just read through the article, and I do not want to accidentally damage it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.76.227 (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it was added by an unregistered user just a couple of hours ago, and I have reverted the edit. Sam Walton (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


I think 'Misconception' is a better definition for what happened regarding the TheFakingHoaxer "Footage". He never claimed it to be footage at all. The actual desastrous interpretation began 4 years later. I don't think it's right to ignore some people puzzling together these rather unfactual conspiracy theories about the disaster. There will always be somebody having a misconception. Wikipedia will be the starting point of research for most people. Why did I use a YouTube Video as a Reference? Because I cannot change the fact, that video has become the dominant form of edutainment. - Emdeelf (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Western Air Defense role in the Columbia Shuttle Disaster.

I tracked it coming into the atmosphere and it Blew up on me. Bob Wade (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. 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) 15:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. 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) 00:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. 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) 09:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. 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) 23:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. 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) 14:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Poor Grammar

Use of the term "disaster" in the title is grammatically incorrect. This was an accident with loss of life. A disaster refers to an event with a loss of a large number of lives, or whose consequences have a significant and direct adverse impact on a large number of lives. I'd suggest the title "Space Shuttle Columbia Accident" or, better, "Loss of Space Shuttle Columbia". 174.131.5.205 (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Accident" seems a little negative, we can't let the American Space Exploration Program be classed together with the Soviet Fumbling Space Conquest Catastrophe. Also it wasn't lost, it just got scattered over a large area. Lets call it a the "Space Shuttle Columbia Unintentional Hot Reentry".186.57.228.240 (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The use of "disaster" in the title is NOT grammatically incorrect. I've researched numerous dictionaries, online and book, and the definitions cover a wide gamut. Even synonym sources, crossword puzzle dictionaries, and thesauri list "disaster" and "accident" as words that can be used for the other. One common thread in the definition of "disaster" is the mention that the event happened 'suddenly' - - - which is what happened to the Columbia; a sudden break up. Also, not every definition (about half) of "disaster" had a quantifier in terms of the number of victims.

Even if the use of "disaster" was wrong, it would NOT be a grammatical error - - - grammar deals with "agreement structure within the writing" [for example: "I am" NOT "I are"], not improper word choice.

If there really are enough people who don't like "disaster," then replace it with "tragedy."

BTW, "loss" and "lost" are not forms or tenses of each other and have different meanings. In the case of the title suggestion, "loss" was used as a perfectly good synonym for "destruction." At other times, "loss" is used in connection with the death of someone or a created void --- "I mourn your loss." "Lost" doesn't really have any of these meanings or inferences. So, the second commenter who took the first one to task over the use of "loss" was wrong to do so. [Since I have a Master's Degree in Rhetoric and Composition, and have been published in academic and professional journals, I know whereof I speak regarding grammar and etymology.] 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Foam contradiction

The "Other contributing factors" section claims that the change in the insulating foam formula was a cause of the failure.

This is contradicted just a few paragraphs earlier in the "Initial Investigation" section which says

"The composition change did not contribute to the accident.[53] In any case, the original formulation had shown frequent foam losses, as discussed earlier in this article."


Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:777C:C750:800D:585:BB4B:7128 (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Side Effects of "Columbia" Disaster on Observers on the Ground Below?

The "Columbia" disaster likely played a role in accidents caused by startled observers on the ground. It may have played a role in the fatal auto accident of Ronnie Respress (1975-2003) of Rohnert Park, California, who crashed his car on Highway 116 in Sonoma County east of Petaluma early in the morning of February 1, 2003. The ill-fated "Columbia" passed overhead near that location early that morning. Jab73 (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? It is highly unlikely, unless the driver was distracted by seeing the bright streak or "flash" that Columbia would have made at an altitude of 230,000 feet over California. No debris hit the ground west of Texas. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Investigation/Conclusions

In Investigation/Conclusions it reads, "It concluded the organizational structure and processes were sufficiently flawed and that a compromise of safety was expected no matter who was in the key decision-making positions."

Should this not be, "It concluded the organizational structure and processes were sufficiently flawed and that a compromise of safety was expected no matter who was in the key decision-making positions."

If not, the phrase "sufficiently flawed" does not make sense to me. Sufficiently flawed to what? Sufficiency denotes meeting requirement, in a positive sense, unless qualified. Is my feeling.


Another thing on flight options: "...and concluded that the rescue option would have had a considerably higher chance of bringing Columbia's crew back alive." Shouldn't this say "would not have had"? Tpkatsa (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Outcome of the Disaster

In the right part of the screen it says vital information, like launch date, casualties and so on. One thing I noticed was that in the outcome section it says "Outcome: shuttle grounded for 29 months". To me that seems a bit misleading. As the shuttle disintegrated and was never fully recovered. A more correct term would be "Total loss of vehicle and crew" or "Shuttle grounded permanently". Think that this mistake is just a typo or a tiny mistake, but I think that it is important to fix it so we have a true fact on the page, and not something missleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.121.134 (talk) 11:30, April 5, 2021 (UTC)

 Done How about [1]? VQuakr (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Section restructuring

I'm planning on restructuring this page's sections. As a rough version:

  • Safety concerns
  • Space Shuttle mission
    • Pre-mission and crew
    • Launch and debris strike
    • In-orbit
    • Reentry
    • Crew survivability
  • Recovery
  • Public response
  • Columbia Accident Investigation Board
  • NASA response
  • Legacy

This follows a similar structure to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster page. I think this provides more of am organized and chronological flow than the current article's structure. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Legacy section too long

I'm removing a good portion of the "Legacy" section, as it covers many similar renamings/honorings/mentions of the STS-107 crew. Please tag me here if you have any questions or concerns on what I leave in or remove. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

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 toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Picking this one up. I won't be able to start the review until the weekend, but since it has been sitting here since August that should be okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! It's the US Thanksgiving period, so I may be tied up as well with family in town, but will be as a responsive as possible! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Article looks very good.

Lead

  • "incident" sounds wrong to me. Suggest "accident"
    This in the short description? Changed to "accident" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "all seven astronauts aboard" -> 'all seven astronauts on board"
    JustinTime55 got it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "During launch" Suggest clarifying that this was the STS-107 launch, as the previous section reference Challenger
    JustinTime55 got it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Background

Flight

Recovery of debris

  • The last two paragraphs are out of order. Suggest moving both up before the previous paragraph?
    Switched. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "is stored in unused office space" Is it still there in 2022?
    Couldn't find an answer, so I changed it to past tense. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The bit after "NASA conducted a fault tree analysis" coyuld be moved into the next section
    If I remember correctly, I debated where this information belonged when I wrote these sections. I decided to keep it in the recovery section because it was a process used to identify what debris to focus on finding. I would like to keep it where it is, but I'm willing to change it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "propellents" should be "propellants" There's always one spelling error.
    JustinTime55 fixed it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Columbia Accident Investigation Board

NASA response

  • "The further construction of the International Space Station (ISS) was also delayed" Delete "also"
    Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • link Canadarm
    Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

  • The Legacy section seems out of order to me. Suggest moving all the events into chronological order.
    I decided to group this section together by category. I think it makes more sense than keeping it strictly chronological (e.g. official government memorial, Opening Day of baseball, Amarillo airport, Arlington Memorial). Do you think that works? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Images

  • No concerns - all are NASA images.

Sources

  • fn 4 has series but not publisher
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • fn 18, 85, 89 need publisher
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • fn 35 Popular Science should be italicized. (Suggest using cite magazine template)
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • fn 82 The Edwardsville Intelligencer should be italicized. (Suggest using cite news template)
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

No concerns about the quality of souces.

Article is of the required quality. The above mainly proves that I have read it. Placing on hold for up to 90 days. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I addressed your comments, with quite a bit of help from JustinTime55. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Meets GA standards
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.

Infobox image

@Balon Greyjoy: Current image doesn't work with old caption. Am unfamiliar with the subject of this article and can't change this myself. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 12:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with your FAC! — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 02:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Grammatical error

There is a grammatical error in the following sentence, as it reads incorrectly: "Hot gas entered the disintegrating crew module, burning the crew members, whose bodies were still somewhat protected by their ACES suits as turned into charred clothing and flesh." I cannot, however, work out what the intended meaning of the last part of the sentence is for me to correct it effectively. Changing "as" to "was" may be part of the solution, but I am lost as to how to reword the sentence prior to this. If you are to read the above sentence, I'm sure you will grasp where I am coming from. I would like to say that my English and grammar are above par; this, however, has me truly stumped. Other people's input into this issue would be appreciated. BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 22:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out - looks like someone added it, along with a bunch of other nonconstructive stuff. I've removed it. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Lede

@Balon Greyjoy Why did you reverted my edits? It does now contain duplicate text. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The duplicate information was a bad manual revert on my part; should be fixed now. I changed the lede to begin with a description of the disaster, rather than when it happened. It seems more appropriate to lead with the "what" over the "when" regarding this disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Pop-up Issue

I haven't been on Wikipedia for too long, but I noticed something and I don't know how to fix it.

Someone changed the pop-up to redirect to the article to include the phrase "For Kobe" so if someone more experienced than me can fix it, that'd be greatly appreciated. Luigi7255 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Section restructuring

I'm planning on restructuring this page's sections. As a rough version:

  • Safety concerns
  • Space Shuttle mission
    • Pre-mission and crew
    • Launch and debris strike
    • In-orbit
    • Reentry
    • Crew survivability
  • Recovery
  • Public response
  • Columbia Accident Investigation Board
  • NASA response
  • Legacy

This follows a similar structure to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster page. I think this provides more of am organized and chronological flow than the current article's structure. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The above user was bold in deleting the previously included detailed reentry timeline in February, 2022. However, this user made some major changes and deletions that warranted discussion here. The detailed timeline was one of the excellent aspects of the article as it had existed prior to the massive edits that the above user made. The timeline cannot be fully captured in prose. Use of public domain material is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, and in fact, it is relied upon. The fact that this was a recent FA is irrelevant to improving the article, for as sated at the top of this Talk page, "Space Shuttle Columbia disaster is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." Restoring the detailed reentry timeline would certainly be an improvement. Note that this restoration woudl not change the section sequencing as noted above. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it is redundant to have the timeline in the article twice. If it is PD, it would be better to store the original on Wikisource and link to it than to include everything. (People including me found the article comprehensive at the FA review, so an argument would need to be made for including extra detail). —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff in CA: Could you indicate what you feel is lost in the translation from a timeline to prose? I don't think that being an FA means no improvements can be made, but I agree with Kusma that the none of the reviewers finding issue with the comprehensiveness of the prose means that there should be an argument for the inclusion of the timeline. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

picture...

I'm pretty sure the introduction picture of a man performing cunnalingus is not the right picture for this article. I don't know how to edit it, so I figured I'd leave it up to the pros here and leave a message. 2600:1702:35F0:1C50:E6EA:2E89:E4C8:28AD (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster/Archive_2&oldid=1191049693"