Talk:Ulf Merbold/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Taking this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking this on! I'll make some changes now but I'll probably be slow in responding over the next few days (travelling). —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• Link West Germany, East Germany, ESA, Spacelab D-1, Spacelab D-2

  Linked. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Early life and education

• Link prisoner of war, cosmonaut, West Germany

  Done.

• "died on 23 February 1948" Rest of article uses Polish date format

  Oh yeah. I made this stupid decision that mdy was probably more suited to the article and I find it hard to remember...

• "dismissed from her service in school " -> "dismissed from her school"

  OK

• East Germany is used before it is linked

  Moved

• Remove the comma after fn 3

  done

• New paragraph before "After graduating"

  OK

• "decided to go to Berlin" Suggest "West Berlin" here.
• "crossing the border" Technically speaking, this was not a border. Suggest rephrasing.

  Turned it into "crossing into West Berlin" and rephrased very slightly. Let me know if you think it still needs work.

• "until the Berlin Wall was built" add the year. (1961)

  Done

• "After the doctorate" -> "After completing his doctorate"

  Done

Astronaut training

• Link ESA, Memorandum of Understanding, astronaut

  Done

• Define ESA on first mention

  Done

• " so remained payload specialist" -> so remained a payload specialist"
• New paragraph at "In 1982"

  Done

• "an announcement of opportunity" does not sound like English. "a call for applicants"?

  It's in the source and seems to be ESA terminology. I have Uppercased it as an "Announcement of Opportunity" as used also in Krige, Russo & Sebesta 2000.

• " Fifty-three of these underwent an interview and assessment process that considered their engineering skills and physical health from September 1977." -> Fifty-three of these underwent an interview and assessment process in September 1977 that considered their engineering skills and physical health."

  Did a similar reordering.

• " Chrétien later flew to space" -> " Chrétien later flew in space"

  Reworded.

• "The position of payload specialist was introduced by NASA for the first Spacelab flight" The term was in use by 1972; see Croft & Youskauskas 2019, p. 12

  Thanks, I wasn't aware that it had been discussed earlier. Tried to clarify.

• "went to Houston for NASA training in 1978" Should introduce the JSC here

  Done.

• "Merbold did not meet NASA's medical requirements" Any idea what was wrong?

  No idea. Or more precisely, I don't think anything was wrong per se, he just "only" met something like the usual pilot standards but not NASA's near superhuman specifications.

• "From January 1982" -> "in January 1982"

  Done, and replaced "underwent" by "started".

• "the crew at Johnson Space Center" Sounds like we are talking about the flight crew only, which was not the case. And it should be "the Johnson Space Center"

  Reworded. But many sources omit the definite article for the Space Centers, for example Shapland/Rycroft.

First Space Shuttle mission

• Break paragraph at "The Spacelab mission"
• replace "circa" with "about"
• Paragraph break before "On one of the last days in orbit"
• Use a.m. and p.m. for times instead of AM and PM (or am and pm). (MOS:TIME)
• "on December 8, 1983, 6:47 pm EST" -> "at 6:47 p.m. EST on December 8, 1983"
• Although the picture of the launch is nice, they are a dime a dozen. I would pref one of the ones of Merbold e.g. File:S09-10-613 - STS-009 - Ulf Merbold on flight deck - DPLA - d53b7f2b160c6ecd73ff8d18ba5c831e.jpg

  All done. I hadn't seen that picture before, nice to have another one of young Merbold. I've moved the crew image to the top. —Kusma (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ground-based astronaut work

• "From 1984" -> "in 1984"
• "From 1984, Merbold was involved in the Spacelab D-1 mission, which was funded by West Germany.[1][60] He was the backup payload specialist for the mission, which was numbered STS-61-A as a Space Shuttle flight, carried out on Challenger from October 30 to November 6, 1985.[61][62]" -> "In 1984, Merbold became the backup payload specialist for the Spacelab D-1 mission, which was funded by West Germany. The mission, which was numbered STS-61-A, was carried out on Challenger from October 30 to November 6, 1985."

  Yep, that is better. —Kusma (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Second Space Shuttle mission

• Why not use a pic of Merbold?

  I already use a picture of Merbold at the time of the mission in the infobox.

Euromir mission

New paragraph starting at "Merbold launched"

Done.

Later career

• "From January 1995, shortly after the Euromir mission, Merbold led the astronaut department" -> "In January 1995, shortly after the Euromir mission, Merbold became the head of the astronaut department"

  Done.

• "He retired on July 30, 2004, but continued to do counselling work for ESA." -> "He retired on July 30, 2004, but continued to do consulting work for ESA."

  Yes, of course. Embarrassing translation error, fixed.

Personal life

• Suggest renaming section "Private life"

  "Personal life" seems common enough, e.g. in Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin and John Young (astronaut).

• Link commercial pilot license

  Done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7, thank you for the review! I have implemented your suggestions so far. Please let me know if there is anything else, or if you think anything important is missing. —Kusma (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, anything else? I'm still travelling, but will be able to respond by Thursday at the latest. —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Been travelling too, but can pass the article now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 11 April 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:

   Still a bit awkward in parts; original may have been translated from German

   Apparently I was thinking more in German than usual. I'll have to try to fix this later. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

   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:

• Although it's not a requirement, I'm not fond of the Google book links, and linking to Worldcat is pointless given OCLC references. I was also disappointed that no use was made of Merbold's book, although it is in German and I haven't read it. I also have a feeling that he may be a celebrity in Germany. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)