Talk:Mercury-Atlas 8/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Olaf Davis (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have a bash at reviewing this. It might take a few days to make the initial assessment. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's the start of the review - I'll work on it here as I go. Feel free to reply to stuff, but I reserve the right to make complaints which turn out to be nonsense and then retract them as I read. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of striking out the resolved ones - it makes it a bit easier to see which have been dealt with and which are still "open"! Shimgray | talk | 16:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, good idea. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

All fine.

Writing / grammar / MOS

I have to say this article is very well written. I've made a very few corrections but for the most part it was fine. No WP:MOS issues present themselves to me either.

Accurate and verifiable

The following statements could do with citation:

• "there was a widespread perception that the United States was falling behind"

This isn't explicitly stated in so many words, but the cite used for that paragraph certainly seems to get that gist over to me. Shimgray | talk | 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't sure if that cite went for the whole paragraph. I left the comment to remind myself to check once I had the pdf. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The original MA-8 flight plan was issued on July 27 and revised slightly in early August, but otherwise remained broadly unchanged until launch." - The source says it was altered again in September, and doesn't say to me that the September alteration was less major than the August, so should we mention both?

Mmm. Fixed, I think - you're right that the August one was pretty trivial. Shimgray | talk | 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Schirra chose the name "Sigma 7" for the capsule..." - this sentence is sourced to page 48 of Results of the third U.S. manned orbital space flight, which is missing from the pdf.

Typo for "49", fixed. Shimgray | talk | 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn't make it clear to me that Schirra himself chose the name. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The perils of the passive voice :-). This New Ocean makes it clearer; I've recited. Shimgray | talk | 13:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's why Microsoft Word dislikes it so much... Yep, new cite is fine.

• "A number of modifications were made to the reaction control system, mainly to help conserve fuel" - I'm not sure mainly is justified by the source.

Mmm. I think I may have picked this up from elsewhere, though as I don't have a source handy I'll omit the qualifier. Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The medical analysis found no noticeable physiological effects" - The source says no detriment, which is slightly different: his heart rate and blood pressure were changed. Those are probably not worth mentioning though - personally I'd just add the word 'detrimental' or something equivalent.

How's "...no significant physiological..."? Equivocates between "nothing to worry about" and "nothing very drastic anyway"; whilst there were changes these seem to have been anticipated and no cause for concern. Shimgray | talk | 22:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• "despite some difficulty comparing them [the ablative materials] to each other" - I couldn't find this on the cited pages (74-75, in Broynton)

This is from 75-77 - specifically, top of p.77 for difficulty in comparison. Shimgray | talk | 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, mea culpa. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• "a particularly well-regarded naval fighter" would be nice to get a cite for.

Fudged a little :-) Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• "with the spacecraft and booster fully stacked on the pad." - I can't see this on the cited page.

It's not explicitly stated anywhere what date the booster was stacked, but the image to the right - dated the day before - pretty clearly shows it assembled. The "simulated flights" were done in the spacecraft itself, not simulators - see the caption on the table on p. 40. Shimgray | talk | 13:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, fair enough. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The mission was reported as ready to go - "apart from the weather" - on October 1" - Is "apart from the weather" a direct quote? I can't see it on the cited page (although equivalent wording is there)

"except for the weather", that should be - quoting the book's paraphrase of Williams. Shimgray | talk | 13:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• "a series of typhoons in the Pacific which could pose a problem for recovery operations." - I don't see this in the source.

It's not explicitly in the source, IIRC, but I felt it was useful for context - there's no other reason for them to have been worried about typhoons in the Pacific that I can think of! Note that This New Ocean refers to weather in "the Atlantic and Pacific areas", not the oceans generally - it's the recovery areas they were concerned with. Shimgray | talk | 22:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect this probably falls under the heading of 'no need to source common sense'- like you say, why else would they care? I think I had my nit-picking turned up a little high. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Do we have any way of confirming that [1] is genuine? It seems unlikely to be a fake but if it is possible to confirm that'd be ideal.

No way I can think of offhand, I'm afraid. I've cited it because - well, I suspect it's in his book, but I've not had any luck tracking down a copy of that. Shimgray | talk | 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn't seem to be in either Oxford or Cambridge's university library systems, which pretty much exhausts my chances of finding it too. This is one of those annoying cases where the source seems probably reliable but not Reliable, as it were. It'd be a shame to have to remove (part of) the anecdote but the GA criteria do require sources for direct quotations... Olaf Davis (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

To my delight, there turns out to be a partial-view copy on Google Books here. I've re-cited accordingly. Shimgray | talk | 13:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Good find! Olaf Davis (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• "In February 1962, the first draft planning began for MA-8, the third orbital mission, with a goal of "six or seven" orbits, as an intermediate step towards a day-long 18-orbit flight." - I can't find this on page 462.

Bottom of the page, under the "Longer Legs for Mercury" heading. Shimgray | talk | 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The decision to replace him with Carpenter, rather than his official backup Schirra, was justified by the large amount of training Carpenter had managed whilst preparing for the long-delayed MA-6 mission" - Can't see this on p. 441.

Top para of p. 443, mea culpa. Fixed! Shimgray | talk | 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• "it was beginning to seem as though the two sides were roughly equal, as a day-long Mercury mission was in the foreseeable future. " - Ditto, p 461.

Good catch; I seem to have done a bit of synthesis here. Hmm. I'll see what I can find for this first bit. Shimgray | talk | 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's something on 460 about press speculation for a one-day flight, which I think must have been what I was referring to. I've tried to rewrite this a bit; as it stands I think we might be at risk of duplicating some of the material used earlier in the section, and it really should be a bit more oriented towards summarising the events of 1962. Shimgray | talk | 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• "though Schirra was able to take a last set of photographs of South America and try another set of spatial-orientation tests" - Ditto, p. 482.

p. 481 - another mistyped reference, it seems. Sorry! Shimgray | talk | 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The spent Atlas booster re-entered the atmosphere on October 4, the day after the launch, where it burned up." - The reference for this is self-published, and I'm not sure where on the website to find the information anyway.

Yeah, I vacillated over this a bit. I've dug up a copy of the Royal Aeronautical Establishment artificial-satellite tables, and linked that instead - JSR is pretty reliable, but I see why you're noting it as self-published and a bit hard to read. Shimgray | talk | 18:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The local recovery group in the prime target area, in the central Pacific, consisted of an aircraft carrier, the USS Kearsarge, in the centre of the landing area, with three destroyers strung out along the orbital path. Four search aircraft were also assigned to the area, and three recovery helicopters were based aboard the Kearsarge" - Assuming this is based on Table II, I see a second aircraft carrier at a similar distance to the farthest destroyer; three "location aircraft" and three "telemetry aircraft" with no indication of which if any are helicopters. Am I missing something?

The numbers are from the table, not the diagram - area 6-1 is the bottom line, with 4 aircraft, 3 helicopters, one carrier and three destroyers. Notes on the destroyers' locations are from the diagram, though, but I don't know why it shows an additional carrier. Perhaps this was passing through the area, but wasn't officially planned as a recovery ship? Shimgray | talk | 18:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe that's it. Either way I think we can trust the table, so I'm happy. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The Kearsarge picked up the capsule on radar while still two hundred miles from landing; ninety miles further up the landing path, the destroyer USS Renshaw reported a sonic boom as it passed overhead. At 40,000 feet, Schirra deployed the drogue parachute, and then the main parachute at 15,000 feet." - The article mentions the radar contact and parachute deployment in the opposite order to the source. Neither actually says that they're giving them chronologically but it feels that way to me. Is there a reason for the change? If the article has them in the right order and that's obvious to anyone who knows what they're talking about then that's fine.

I think it has to be this way around. Radar two hundred miles out, then passing overhead at supersonic speeds ninety miles out. Then you slow below supersonic speeds, then parachute deployment, then landing. If we had the Renshaw sonic boom coming after parachute deployment, the capsule would have to travel at least eighty or ninety miles horizontally, with a drogue parachute deployed, for just seven and a half vertically. It just doesn't seem to work... Shimgray | talk | 13:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought there might be some reason like that. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The landing was surprisingly precise" - Is this based on the word 'scant' in the source, or something else as well?

A general feeling from the sources, I think, but "scant" is a pretty good example of it. They repeatedly note how close it was; the previous mission, MA-7, had landed something implausible like two hundred miles off-target. Shimgray | talk | 14:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• "half a mile from the Kearsarge." - I admit I'm getting pretty anal now, but do we know that he landed half a mile from them or did he land 4.5 miles off and then meet the whaleboat after the carrier had moved to within half a mile?

Interesting point. This New Ocean doesn't mention the carrier moving, and he landed "in full view of the ship's crew", which seems to suggest closer rather than further away. Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't spotted "in full view". I'm satisfied. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Schirra's post-flight report noted the "fireflies" seen on the previous two missions, and emphasised the remarkable visual effect of the thick band of the atmosphere visible around the horizon." - Can't find this one in the source (Boynton, 74-75).

Footnote confusion there, I think - it's in Results..., p. 53. Shimgray | talk | 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Found it, thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Good Article Criteria require inline cites for statistics - so the stuff in the infobox should be cited. Is there a handy table somewhere or are they picked from various bits of the sources?

You know, I actually have no idea. There'll probably be a reference table in one of the reports, I'll dig around. Shimgray | talk | 22:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now cited everything except "crew = 1 and orbits = 6", which seem self-evident from the text. Two figures I couldn't find cites for, so have omitted - they're a bit excessively technical anyway. Shimgray | talk | 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll try and check those this evening. Max velocity would actually have been nice to have I think, but never mind. And yes, if we can't infer from that Schirra was the only crew member then there's something badly wrong! Olaf Davis (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The spacecraft was to be equipped with several cameras, building on Schirra's photographic work, though weight and power limitations did restrict the amount of scientific experiments that could be scheduled." - maybe I'm just tired, but I don't see this on p.491 of This New Ocean. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The second para of 491 talks about Cooper's press conference; three cameras plus the on-board TV camera. The power limits are in the first para of 492; engineers put the clamp on too many experiments. Reference fixed... Shimgray | talk | 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see it... Depending on how you count, the second paragraph of 491 begins either "Another ground-test program behind the scenes..." or "Meanwhile, the tiger teams at work..." Neither of these seems to be talking about MA 8 at all. Or am I going mad? Olaf Davis (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh god. I seem to have done this again - misstated the page numbers. Doing it for a correction is, well, doubly embarrassing. Second on 490 ("Amid some charges from impatient newsmen..."), and first (carried over) on '491 ("...an extensive requalification program..."). Mea culpa! Shimgray | talk | 15:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Broad

For the most part the article covers everything I think it ought to. One thing I'd like to see added is a little more discussion of the mission's implications for M-A 9. The Background section does a good job of putting the mission in the context of the Mercury programme and the plans for a day-long flight; I think this would be complete if we had a short paragraph (either here or at the end of the article) on the effect it had on the next mission. For example, did any of the minor technical glitches lead to changes in M-A 9's equipment? Were the changes from M-A 7 kept for the next mission?

Similarly, since the article says "There was a hope that the coming orbital Mercury missions would begin to make the "race" somewhat more equal" we should indicate whether this did work. What was the public perception of the mission, and its place in the space race?

Neither of these has to be long, but I think they're natural questions to ask after the setup given by the Background section. What do you think?

First one done, though I'm still a little stuck on the second. I might try tracking down a more general history of the early space race and see what comes up. Shimgray | talk | 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your section on MA 9 is just what I was thinking of. I've left one query about it above, but the rest's fine. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems, on examination, the reason we don't see much commentary was everyone panicking about Cuba - Schirra flew on the 3rd, and within a few days "imminent nuclear DEATH" was top of the headlines. There were no more Soviet spaceflights until the next summer; the "race" seems to have died down a bit. I've added a bit of new material; if you'd like more, I'll try hitting up old newspapers for op-ed pieces. Shimgray | talk | 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. If you do find any suitable pieces they'd be nice, but I think at this stage they're not a necessity. And so...Olaf Davis (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

No problems.

Stable

Yep.

Images

All look good to me.

Sorry to burst in here, but I liked the article and I figured I would do a detailed image review. I hope you aren't offended by this Olaf; I just liked the subject and hoped it could be taken to FAC, where this would be required anyway.

• File:Sigma 7 insignia.jpg needs a source.

I have no idea where this came from - I've been looking for a while. I believe it's cropped from a larger picture, but I haven't identified it yet, and the user seems to be inactive. Shimgray | talk | 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll tag it as no source for now; it should be reuploaded with the proper source and copyright information the source is found. NW (Talk) 21:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source you provided me; the image should be good now. NW (Talk) 21:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:GPN-2000-001351.jpg and File:S74-33004.jpg should be renamed and moved to Commons.

Done! One was already there, in fact... Shimgray | talk | 21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I know that there is a template for LoC images, where all you need to give is the ID number, and the rest of the template will be filled out. Is there such a one for NASA images as well, as it would be nice if the sources for File:MA-8 simulated launch.gif, File:MA-8 mission control.jpg, and File:MA-8 liftoff.gif, File:MA-8 view of cumulus clouds.jpg, File:MA-8 view over South America.jpg, File:MA-8 landing under parachute.jpg could be hyperlinked.

I can link directly to the original files, but not to the metadata pages, which would be preferable - a bare link to an exact copy of the file doesn't help at all! The metadata pages are available through NTRS (and through NIX, a similar access system for images only), but the URLs seem to involve session IDs and so on. Shimgray | talk | 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Turns out the ones of the Sxx-yyyyy form can be linked through a jsc.nasa.gov server - I've done them accordingly. Shimgray | talk | 21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good then. NW (Talk) 21:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:MA-8 liftoff.gif and File:MA-8 simulated launch.gif should not be in .gif format, but should be in .jpg instead.

I only have .gif sources for these, unfortunately - I'd much prefer jpegs. However, I'm not really wanting to convert them; they're pretty small files, so we'd get quite a degraded jpeg. I'll keep an eye out for printed ones we can scan afresh, though. Shimgray | talk | 22:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:Sigma7-1.jpg ought to be moved to Commons.

Regards, NW (Talk) 05:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, NuclearWarfare. Image policy's one of my weak points so it's good to see your assessment. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

All in all this is a very nice article; it was a pleasure to read and review. I've made some requests above but I don't think any should be too demanding (and plenty have been fixed already!), so I'm confident this'll be ready for GA status soon. In the mean time I'm putting it on hold.

Thanks for the feedback! I'm a little swamped right now but I'll try to get the remaining issues cleared up over the weekend. Shimgray | talk | 12:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! No great hurry to fix the remaining points. Good luck satisfying my nitpicking. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

After rather a delay in the final moments (sorry again about that) I've checked the final points and everything seems in order. Congratulations on a very nice article, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to work with you on polishing it to GA status.

So, what's next - FA or Mercury-Atlas 9?Olaf Davis (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)