Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster/GA3

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

GA Review[edit]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article looks very good.

Lead[edit]

  • "incident" sounds wrong to me. Suggest "accident"
    This in the short description? Changed to "accident" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all seven astronauts aboard" -> 'all seven astronauts on board"
    JustinTime55 got it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]

Background[edit]

Flight[edit]

Recovery of debris[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Columbia Accident Investigation Board[edit]

NASA response[edit]

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

Legacy[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

Images[edit]

  • No concerns - all are NASA images.

Sources[edit]

  • fn 35 Popular Science should be italicized. (Suggest using cite magazine template)
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 82 The Edwardsville Intelligencer should be italicized. (Suggest using cite news template)
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster/GA3&oldid=1122464961"