Talk:Robert J. Cenker
Robert J. Cenker is currently a Physics and astronomy good article nominee. Nominated by RobP (talk) at 13:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
|
Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
Spaceflight B‑class | ||||||||||
|
Pennsylvania Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Article update status
I am in the process of making a significant update to this article, and am doing that in my user space. If you have any suggested info to add, please do not make changes in the article itself; instead suggest them here so that I may incorporate them when I publish the update. Thanks! RobP (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Update: Still working it... almost ready to go! RobP (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Update: I just replaced the existing material with the expanded article. I removed classification of stub as well. RobP (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Article classification status
I modified the WikiProject templates to remove the start class designation. Concerning the general classification rules here, it looks like a B to me. I updated the Spaceflight classification accordingly and left a notice on that site as follows:
- I am going to reclassify (this article) as a B which seems to fit well with its current state. If anyone disagrees, please let me know why. Thanks! RobP (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Challenger mission material. Undue weight?
The Undue weight flag should not be used as that flag has nothing to do with a disagreement on emphasis such as this. That issue can be argued over on Talk without such a blemish on the page! RobP (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- The template is not a blemish, it is there to encourage discussion, once consensus has been reached among editors, it can be removed.--RadioFan (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well it not being a blemish is a matter of opinion. It would be the first thing folks read and it certainly has a bad connotation. If it was warranted, I would d say so be it. However, after reading the UNDUE page again to be sure, I do not think this is the kind of "controversy" it is meant to flag. We are not talking about minority viewpoints or mentioning Flat Earth nonsense on a page about the Earth. This is just a matter of opinion on emphasis of the mission following to this one and how often any mention should be included. If that sort of thing were a valid reason for its use - just the degree something should be stressed or not - that banner would be on practically every article. RobP (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Challenger disaster
Currently Challenger is mentioned 8 times in the article, 4 of those make the point that Cenker lone flight on STS-61-C preceded STS-51-L. Any thoughts on trimming this? I also wonder if the details on STS-61-C which don't involve Cenker could be trimmed and/or moved to the mission article where appropriate.
The Challenger disaster is certainly worth mentioning in the context that it triggered Cenker's place as the last civilian payload specialist for several years, but that point need only be made once.
I'm eager to hear other perspectives.--RadioFan (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Eight times seems like a lot... but one is in the lede which is a summary of the article, and two are in Notes (which many do not even read). So there are really 5 in the main article... and two are in a single sentence mentioning the fatalities. As to the meat of the issue: Before my re-write, (I expanded this article from what was a stub with no citations) the entire article actually was in danger of being deleted. There was not enough content to give it a reason to exist on Wikipedia. One editor called it "just a CV" and asked for a deletion. A vote to delete could have happened at any time. So I wrote this from the viewpoint of a historical perspective: that what made this a notable mission WAS in fact what happened immediately after and how that affected things. Some have loved the approach I took. I guess others not so much. We shall see what happens. RobP (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)