Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Nowak/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2021 [1].

Lisa Nowak

edit
Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC) and Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about astronaut Lisa Nowak. As an astronaut, she is noteworthy, and her tabloid history makes her prominent in the public consciousness. Also, Hawkeye7 consistently does excellent work. Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

edit

More later. ~ HAL333 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • she transferred to the Restricted Line as an Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer, and was selected to attend the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at NAS Patuxent River Is the comma needed after "and"?
    Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her husband was a Naval Flight Officer who operated systems on the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, an electronics warfare aircraft, with Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 (VAW-124) from January 1996 until April 1998, when he left active duty, although he continued to fly in the United States Naval Reserve. is a it of a run-on.
    Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. :) ~ HAL333 00:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit

Unfortunately, I will not have the time to do a full review for this, but I have three quick questions about the "In popular culture" section.

  • Is there a reason that this information is presented as a bulleted list rather than as prose? I have mostly seen information presented in prose rather than as a list so this section sticks out to me.
  • Do you think the Lucy in the Sky part would benefit from some minor expansion? I remember during the film's release, there was a lot of press about the film's connection with Nowak, like comments about it not including the whole adult diapers thing. I suggest this as I think having a little more information would make this seem less trivial.
  • Continuing off my second point, what makes these entries non-trivial and relevant enough to be included? I have never personally worked on a section like this, and I know there are Wikipedia essays like Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content specifically about this. I'm not saying that these parts should be removed (as I believe the coverage around Lucy in the Sky makes it non-trivial for instance), but I was curious on your point of view about this.

Apologies for the drive-by comments. These are just a few questions I had about a specific section. I am glad to see this in the FAC space as it is such a huge part of pop culture and recent history. And I'm a native Floridian so something about reading about NASA-related subjects is oddly nostalgic for me. Anyway, I hope this is somewhat helpful, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise! Short reviews are always welcome! Especially from editors who aren't part of the usual suspects. (They deserve a break,) To address the issues you raised:
  • I originally did have the section in prose. MOS:PROSE: Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain. However, WP:TRIVIA says: This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format but MOS:POPCULT says: If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. In any case, it was changed to a bulletted list by PCPLUM118 with this edit
  • Thank you for the links to the different areas in the Manual of Style. I always enjoy learning more about different areas of Wikipedia, and I appreciate that you took the time to add in the links. I will leave the prose/list part to your judgement. I wanted to ask as it was something that drew my attention. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't finished watching Lucy in the Sky; the Saints game was on. Lucy was disturbing to me, as several of the things presented in the show would have prevented the real-life incident from ever taking place. Like being interviewed by the shrink after a flight. In fact, the last time any of Nowak's class fronted a shrink was for the job interview ten years before. (The film made $55,000 from 37 theatres in its opening weekend, which was described as "terrible".)
  • It is certainly a very odd film and I am honestly quite confused on how the film was trying to handle its connection with Nowak or its tone n general. I was just curious if you think it would be helpful to add a sentence or two to expand on how the film was a loose adaption to provide some context to this. But since the other parts of this section are only one sentence each, it may put undue weight on this one pop culture reference. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short answer to your third point is that other editors thought them worthy of mention. I hate Popular Culture sections, and will ruthlessly purge anything that is not properly referenced. For more commentary on them , see WP:POPCULTURE and xkcd

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough. I think this is a point that still generates a good deal of discussion. Since the citations are from third-party, reliable sources, then I think this part should be okay. Thank you for the explanations for each of my points. That clears it up for me at least, and I think the section should be fine as it is. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article looks good to me. I support the article for promotion as it looks ready to me and HAL's support above also encourages me to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

edit
  • The lead looks a bit heavy on the links. May I suggest you drop links for "aeronautical engineering" and the second California link?
    Dropped the link to "aeronautical engineering", but there is only one "California" link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move "Born in Washington, D.C." to the second paragraph, to keep the first one focussed on the key items.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 2010 --> since this date is different from the others, it drew my attention to dates .. is it really neceassary to have the exact date 3 times in the lead? It somehow makes it seem realy important to me if you say February 5, 2007. Like September 11, 2001. I would think February 2007, March 2007, November 2009 are sufficient.
    Reduced the dates in the last paragraph lead to month/year or year only, matching the first two paragraphs Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the January of her junior year of high school -> I'm not a native speaker, so it may very well be just fine, but to my foreign ears this "the January" sounds odd
    It's fine; leaving the article out would be incorrect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • those women that did so were often resented by men who were passed over --> I don't have access to the source, but just checking if this is the author summarising research or the author's opinion?
    She doesn't have footnotes, but is summarising published research. The whole thing blew up in what is called the Tailhook scandal, which generated a great deal of material. There is no evidence that Nowak was personally affected, but it would be far more surprising if she wasn't. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 2006, it mission was rescheduled --> the mission I presume?
    Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a host of problems --> that doesn't strike me as the right tone here. Maybe just problems?
    Changed to "multiple". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • prelaunch and pre-launch are both used. I would go for pre-launch
    Standardised on "prelaunch". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8.0 million kilometers (5×106 mi) --> I couldn't see on MOS:NUM that this is the right way to do it. I think "8 million kilometers (5 million mi)"
    A matter of fiddling with the {{convert}} template. Changed to "8 million kilometers (5 million miles)"
  • Nowak (center) and the rest of the STS-121 crew inspects --> no final s
    The final s is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • that caption also needs a full stop. Three of the other captions as well, they seem full sentences to me.
    Full stops added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reached the end but shall have to look at the sources another time. I found the article interesting and easy to read. Well-written and informative. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: a few questions:

  • #26: LinkedIn is misspelled. For which part of the sentence is it needed? (Sorry, I don't have access to #27 so can't see for myself)
    Reorganised so the relevant piece is separate. It reads: "Her husband was a Naval Flight Officer who operated systems on the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, an electronics warfare aircraft, with Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 (VAW-124) from January 1996 until April 1998, when he left active duty." It is sourced from his LikedIn profile. Per WP:RSPSRC: "should be avoided unless the post is used for an uncontroversial self-description".
    My interpretation of uncontroversial self-description is probably more strict: I'm thinking more along the lines of the spelling of one's middle name. Job titles and job descriptions are most prone to be embellished, and in this case, with prestigious NASA, even more so. I welcome views from more experienced FAC source reviewers, but if they fail to materialise, I would suggest that if you either try to find an alternative, more reliable source, or you simply drop this sentence. I don't think that would weaken the article. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My interpretation of uncontroversial self-description is less strict. In this case, all it provides is exact dates. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #141: Vice.com is listed as No consensus on WP:RSPSRC. Is there a better source?
    Added an additional reference from Dazed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #143: appears to be a user-generated site. Is there a better source?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources seem ok. I hope to do a spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources spot check: I don't have access to the Fanning and Moore books, so I just picked a few other random ones:

  • #67: (Orlando Sun): ok
  • #76 (CNN): "handwritten" is mentioned but it was not the request that was handwritten. I didn't see anything that confirmed "Shipman referred to Nowak as an acquaintance of her boyfriend, but did not identify Oefelein".
    It is in the next reference. Probably separated when someone interpolated an edit. Inserted correct reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #72 (NYT): does not mention "senior active duty Naval Officer in the NASA Astronaut Corps", and "Chief of the Astronaut Office". It also says that it was the state's assistent attorney who argued the facts.
    Also appears in a following reference. Probably separated when someone interpolated an edit. Inserted correct reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #81 (orlando Sent): it only says "second bite out of the apple". I don't think we can say "unhappy that Nowak had been granted bail, pressed more serious charges solely to keep her in jail." based on just this source
    Same again. Inserted correct reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #82 (AP): ok
  • the second paragraph in Altercation has 6 sentences, but all of its references are at the end. Can you distribute them a bit better?
    Actually, only two of the four cover the paragraph; the other two are primary documents added for the reader. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll stop here. I think you need to check each sentence of the Airport Incident. I suspect all the sources are there for the story as a whole but it may be you need to add more references per sentences. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I checked the whole second paragraph in Altercation. All fine. Also checked #77,#104,#120. All ok. Spotcheck passed. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lawrence Khoo

edit
  • Generally well sourced, and neutrally written.
  • The lead sentence lists 5 different jobs. Some of those roles may not be notable, and a couple may be redundant. Please review WP:ROLEBIO for the guideline on what to list in the lead sentence.
Nowak is notable as an astronaut, although if she were not, she may have still been as a test pilot or naval officer. These are noteworthy and covered at length in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since all these roles are covered in the lead, I think they should stay. However, I think she's most notable as an astronaut, so I would put that role first. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment I was asked to take a look at this but as the matter appears resolved will not opine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Would you be willing to do a quick review? The review has lots of comments but only one formal support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sentence in the last paragraph of the lead about what she is doing today, would not be amiss.
Unfortunately, all we have is that she works in the private sector. Added that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LK (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still having problems with the lead sentence. If I understand correctly, "naval flight officer" and "test pilot" were roles she held as United States Navy captain. As written, it implies that those are 3 different careers. Suggest something like "... is an American aeronautical engineer, former NASA astronaut, and United States Navy captain, working as naval flight officer and test pilot." LK (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed different careers. She never actually performed them while she was a captain because she was promoted to that rank after she became an astronaut. Still trying to think of a wording that works. Note that the rank is different from the USAF one. I would have written "US Air Force Capitan" but then we have the problem of three blue links in a row again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I feel she is best described as a "former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain", as those other roles were undertaken as part an parcel of being NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain. The other roles can be expanded on subsequently. Something like "... is a former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain, who worked as aeronautical engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot." How's that sound? I think it's best to avoid making it seem like she had 5 different careers. LK (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clumsy, but it may work. Changed as suggested. As long as it is understood that she did have five different careers: naval flight officer, test pilot, astronaut, navy captain and aeronautical engineer, in that order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's correct to say that she had five careers. For example, if a person only ever held one job, such as Professor of Sociology at a public university, but as part of her job, she wrote academic papers, authored books, sat on administrative committees, and lectured classes, one would not say that the person had multiple careers. One should not state that the person was a Professor of Sociology, a writer, an author, an administrator, and a lecturer. See WP:ROLEBIO for the guideline on this.
I'd note that for the Nowak article, the article body currently divides her career into two sections, Naval and NASA. Since the lead should reflect the content in the body, I think it's appropriate for the lead sentence to imply that she has had two careers. LK (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this is the right place to hash it out, but the current lead sentence is a mess. If I understand the situation correctly, she has only ever had two employers, the US Navy and NASA. The Navy employed her as an aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot. NASA employed her as a flight controller (not notable) and astronaut. She was fired from both jobs, and will not return to those roles. Her post discharge career is not notable, so we needn't mention it in the lead paragraph. The question is, how to accurately reflect that in one sentence. My preference would be for "... is a former NASA astronaut and former US Navy captain, who worked as aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot." Alternatively, she can be described as "... a former astronaut, aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot, who was NASA mission specialist and US Navy Captain." This implies that she had four notable careers, and notes the two highest ranks she held. LK (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASA did not employ Nowak as a flight controller; it employed her husband as a flight controller. She was only seconded to NASA and remained a naval officer the entire time. The Navy did not employ her as an aerospace engineer; that has been her post-Navy career. It is not notable (ie worthy of an article in its own right) but it is noteworthy, and another editor argued strongly for its inclusion. As noted already, Nowak is not a former aerospace engineer; she is currently one. The Navy employed her as a naval flight officer and then as a test pilot. This is not part an parcel of being a naval officer; few naval officers pursue these career paths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, would it be accurate to state that "Lisa Marie Nowak ... is a aerospace engineer, and former NASA astronaut and US Navy captain. While in the Navy, Nowak worked as naval flight officer and test pilot. ..." Is that correct? I'll edit the article to show you what I mean, feel free to change as necessary. LK (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That wording is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
US Air Force doesn't need to be linked. In fact, looking at it, the lead is a little overlinked. Per MOS:OVERLINK, words that most English speakers would understand usually should not be linked. LK (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly "captain" is not one of them, so changed to "U.S. Air Force captain" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed the bullet point list "In popular culture" section. MOS discourages trivia sections populated with bullet point lists. See MOS:CULTURALREFS and WP:POPCULTURE. It suggests folding the content into the body of the article, and writing about cultural references with flowing text. If this is too much trouble for now, the bullet list could be moved to the talk page and formatted for inclusion in a properly written Cultural References section. LK (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#What this guideline is not applies here. As noted elsewhere on this page, I wrote it in prose with flowing text, and it was rewritten into its current point form by another editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be rewritten as prose? Since FA's are held to a higher standard, I believe they should not include sections formatted in a way that MOS advises against. LK (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hawkeye7: Any response to LK's comment immediately above? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I waited until the issue below was resolved. Rewritten as prose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For BLP privacy reasons, I highly suggest that this article not be added to the today's featured article queue, even if promoted to FA. Since the subject of the article is no longer a public figure, it would not be appropriate to throw the spotlight on her again. LK (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

This has been open for five weeks and while attracting a reasonable amount of comment has only one support. I will add it to urgents, but it may be an idea for you to contact those who have commented so far to see if they are able to support promotion, or have further comments or queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • Perhaps given the limited length of Google previews, and the brief period many of our readers spend here, the opening paragraph should contain some hint of her notoriety for the circumstances that got her sacked as an astronaut, since that is what probably she is best known for. I do not wish it, of course, to overshadow a distinguished career in the service of the United States to that point.
    What do you suggest? Something like "Was dismissed from NASA after an incident in 2007"? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing" was the landing televised? I thought what people saw was Armstrong walk on the Moon.
    Hmmm Looks like it was recorded on 16 mm. Changed to "Moon mission". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The STS-121 mission was originally scheduled for March or April 2005, but was postponed to July. During the launch of Space Shuttle Discovery for STS-114 in July 2005, debris had separated from the external tank, which previously had caused the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia." The timeline here feels a little unclear.
    Tweaked the wording a little. The chronology is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was more challenging to operate than the one of the Space Shuttle, since it was larger and had an additional joint.[57]" I might change "of" to "on".
    Changed as suggested. I think I used "of" because it was not always carried. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early police reports claimed that she wore Maximum Absorbency Garments during the trip, but she later denied this.[69][70]" "Claimed" implies disbelief, and we only have Nowak's word. I would suggest "stated".
    Changed as suggested. Disbelief is indeed what I have, although I didn't write it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with concerns expressed about NASA's astronaut selection and screening process and planned 30-month missions to Mars.[88][89]" This is awkwardly phrased.
    Deleted the phrase about Mars to tighten the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Policies at NASA were changed in a variety of ways: flight surgeons would receive additional training in psychiatric evaluation, and although there was an unofficial code of conduct in place, an official "Code of Conduct" would be written up for employees.[94]" I'm rather surprised by this as according to the congressional hearings into the Apollo 15 covers incident, NASA promulgated Standards of Conduct applicable to all employees including astronauts on October 21, 1967.
    Doesn't match the source so rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plastic gloves, contacts, cash, an umbrella, and black sweats." Does contacts mean contact lenses?
    The source says "On 'Flight controller’s Log' note paper, Nowak listed more than two dozen items, such as black sneakers (8-9), plastic gloves, contacts, cash, umbrella and black sweats."
  • "On May 11, 2007, authorities released a surveillance video from the Orlando International Airport terminal purporting to show Nowak waiting for nearly an hour, standing near the baggage claim, then donning a trench coat and later following Shipman after she retrieved her bags.[100]" The underlying source does not say purporting. It identifies Nowak definitely.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nowak retired from the Navy with the rank of commander on September 1, 2011.[123]" I thought she was discharged other-than-honorable?
    Correct. Changed to "She retired from the Navy with an other than honorable discharge and the rank of commander" 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The article relies quite heavily on the Fanning book for details of Nowak's life prior to "the incident", and then on news sources for details of the incident and aftermath. Can you explain the approach to sourcing?
    It reflects the way the article was developed, which was in three phases. Originally it was based on NASA sources, the standard ones about any astronaut, along with an interview with Nowak. After the 2007 incident, editors added a plethora of information about it from news sources. Finally, I came through, expanding the other sections of the article to give it a proper balance. Much of this was based Fanning's book; Moore's was not yet published. This is normal for biographical articles; only the most famous people have more than one biography. The workings of the Matthew effect mean that the ones with biographies already are likely to get more, but those lacking are likely to miss out. I did not want to rely too heavily on Fanning, so used other sources where available. Much of the incident section could also have been sourced from Fanning too, but it was all properly sourced, or so I thought, so I left it in place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there differences in either details or weighting between Fanning and Moore? Had the "incident" section been written after these publications, would that have changed how it is described? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fanning's book is more richly detailed. There has been no reappraisal or reinterpretation of the events. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lawrencekhoo and Hawkeye7: You seem to be missing the point. Whether or not a source is reliable is not the issue. The question here is [always] does the article meet the FAC criteria. In this case the requirement that all "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" (emphasis added). Evidencing that a source is reliable is fine, but there is also a requirement for all FA sources to be high quality. Can you establish that the sources being challenged are high quality? If not they shouldn't be in an FAC. And the onus for establishing that each and every source used in an FAC is high quality is entirely with the nominator; if they are not confident that they can do so for any, they should not be using them. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "high-quality" is undefined and largely meaningless, and cannot be positively established. As you yourself pointed out above, it is not "entirely with the nominator", but is determined by the consensus of the reviewers, which we have both here and at RSN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not married to that particular statement, and I believe neither is Hawkeye7. If you think Vice should not be used as a source in a FA, let's just remove the statement and be done with it. Although, I'd note that Vice has been used in FAs (as in Gwen Stefani). LK (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FAC coordinators: It is not in the article! And nobody has said it is not acceptable. Responsibility for determining whether "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" is not the responsibility of the nominator; it is the responsibility of the coordinator. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than eight weeks since this was nominated and it seems to have reached an impasse over sources. Unless this is broken over the next day or two I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources in question are not used in the article, and no one has said there is any problem with the sources that are used. The consensus here and at RSN is that the sources in question are indeed reliable, but I emphasise that they are not used in the article at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you again, but given the assurances that any sources which have had their bone fides as high quality (being reliable is, obviously, a given) questioned are no longer used I wonder if you could run your eyes over this again. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM

edit

There's plenty here to comment on but I'm wary that I'll be wasting my time if the "issue" around the sourcing above has not been resolved satisfactorily. If someone can let me know, I won't put my energy into it if it's about to be closed (just as the Accolade (company) FAC was closed within an hour of me spending a considerable amount of time reviewing it, even though it had already gained the support of a co-ord....) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, support by (recused) coords carry the same weight as any other review, no more. The length of time Accolade had been open with two recent sets of concerns (yours among them) made archiving the appropriate course; your commentary there is not wasted, the nominator can and should take them into account before another try at FAC. In this case I think the outstanding sourcing issue was minor and I've in fact dealt with it myself (unless I'm missing something, Nikki) and I was ready to promote until I saw your placeholder. So comment away here, the nom isn't going away yet. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found it troubling that someone charged with assessing suitability of nominations supported one which was summarily archived, that was bothersome. In any case, glad to know that (this time) I won't be wasting my time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that while the chances of the article has Buckley's hope being promoted, you won't be wasting your time. I will address any issues you have. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "she was there, there were.." there there, not sparkling, maybe "during her secondment, there were" or similar.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so half the jobs in the Navy" exactly half the roles in the US Navy were combat assignments?
    Approximately half, per our usual conventions on rounding. Wording follows the source. All jobs were opened in 2015. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of talent or ability" really saying the same thing.
    A talent is an inate skill; an ability is a demonstrated one. Changed to "aptitude or ability" to get the point across more clearly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "training women for jobs they could not do" more "they were not permitted to do".
    Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resented by men who were passed over" do you mean "resented by the men who had been passed over as a consequence" or simillar?
    I don't want to say that. They were not accepted for flight training because they were not good enough, but often saw their chances diminished by places being taken by better-qualified women. Some would have been disappointed even if women were not admitted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've mentioned flight training twice before "primary flight training" which is then linked and redirects to US Naval Aviator...
    That's useless. unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continued at Corry Station" is there a reason that this isn't referred to as "Center for Information Warfare Training"?
    That name was not adopted until 2016. Added its name back then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grumman EA-6 Prowler, " in the lead this was an EA-6B Prowler.
    Changed to EA-6B Prowler
  • " to the Restricted Line as an" this needs in-article explanation.
    It is explained: it says she became an Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer. All women became restricted line at the point where their careers specialised, due to the restriction on combat roles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and EA-6B." overlinked.
    Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "logged over 1,500 hours of flight time in over 30 " same here as lead, "more than 30".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The medals she was awarded, are these just like "you served some time, here you go" medals or are they contingent on specific actions or achievements?
    Somewhere in between. Closer to the former than the latter usually, although the latter is possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Astronaut Office, " this redirects, so it's meaning in this context is unclear to me.
    The Astronaut Office is the administrative body at the JSC that controls the activities of astronauts. It's part of the Flight Operations Branch. It's not the same as the Astronaut Corps, which consists of all astronauts, some of whom are seconded to other parts of NASA, or sometimes even to other government organisations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Space Shuttle's" you've mentioned the Shuttle a few times already so this is an odd time to link it.
    Linked on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got "robotic arm" and "robot arm" both linked to different targets, there's something of an element of surprise to that because they appear synonymous.
    Changed one to "Space Shuttle's robotic arm". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three small children." not sure about "small" here, young perhaps.
    Changed as suggested. Two were babies and one was nine years old. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles Hobaugh" you already mentioned him (and linked him) but last time included his middle initial. Either be consistent or (as I would think) drop the first name on

subsequent mentions as long as it's not ambiguous to whom you refer.

More to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lisa_Nowak/archive1&oldid=1021739306"