Talk:Robert J. Cenker/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 17:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Commencing GA review.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is clear and easily understood. Follows MOS guidelines.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Article is thoroughly referenced does not contain copyright violations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Comprehensive and not too detailed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are correctly licensed and are used appropriately.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Congratulations! This article passes. Codyorb (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Review reopened

Per a discussion at Codyorb's talk page, this review is being reopened, and further work will include contributions from Mike Christie, who has agreed to give a second opinion on the state of the article, given that Codyorb is new at reviewing, and some issues came to light. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-review by Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I screw anything up.

• What makes the following websites reliable sources? I'm not saying they're not reliable, just that I can't find evidence of their reliability from their websites.
  • spacefacts.de Redundant, so I removed it.
  • classmates.com (a discussion on WP:RSN seems to say it is not)
  • americaspace.com
  • astronautix.com
  • jamesoberg.com
  • collectstpace.com
• I think the lead could be made a bit longer; it's very thin at the moment.

Expanded it a bit.

• spacecraft bus manager: can we get a link for bus? I assume it's bus (computing), but wasn't sure enough to add it without checking.

Bus references to a model type. There is a Wiki page so I added a link!

• 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 Challenger mission, STS-51-L. This could be clearer. Cenker and Magilton were competing with each other at this point, right? Only one would be selected? And was it definite that they were training for the Columbia mission, or could they have been selected for a later mission? Were others in their training group in competition with them for the Payload Specialist positions for Columbia, or were the others only training for later flights? I can tell some of this from later in the article, but it should be clear at this point.

Changed to: "...Bob Cenker, and his co-worker Gerard Magilton, were selected to train as Payload Specialists so that one of the pair could accompany Satcom Ku-1 into space." Better? Pre-Challenger disaster mindset, it is possible that if RCA launched another spacecraft on a mission, Magilton (or Bob) would have flown again as they would have been trained and ready. But this is speculation without any reference I could find, so I did not mention it.

• Why tell the story of the hazardous launch attempts entirely in quotes? Quotes are for illustration; I don't see any reason why we couldn't paraphrase most or all of these quotes.

I originally had tried to paraphrase, and other editors complained it was not clear... so I gave up an quoted the expert on this complex issue. Please give it a go if you really think this is a problem.

• The satellite is referred to as "Satcom Ku-1" at one point, and "Satcom K-1" at another point; I assume one is a typo.

Typo. Fixed.

• reached its geostationary “slot”: can we get a link or explanation for "slot"? I assume the word is used because "orbit" sounds odd for a geostationary satellite, but a reader who doesn't know what geostationary means isn't going to know that. A link for "geostationary" would probably be good too.

Slot is shorthand in the industry for "designated geostationary orbital position". I have replaced the shorthand, and added a link.

• Is "Shuttle" capitalized or not? It seems to be inconsistent -- "for the Shuttle Program", and in the next sentence "the shuttle fleet".

Per Wiki article, it should be "Space Shuttle" or "Shuttle". I made corrections.

• Are all the professional societies worth mentioning? Being a registered PE in Jersey seems a minor thing for an encyclopedia to mention; being a life member of the Penn State Alumni Association also seems pretty cuttable.

Don't know the rules on that, so I put everything relevant I could find. If you feel like deleting some, go for it.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)