Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 6

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 6/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 00:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. starsandwhales (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• Though the introduction and selection sections make sense, there isn't really much of a transition between background and the following section. Yes it makes sense that NASA's plans couldn't be fulfilled because of funding, but it would be helpful to have a sentence or two explaining the dramatic shift.

  Y I have expanded this into a second paragraph on the "Background" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think this is how the formatting of the references and notes goes. If you swap notes for references and references for sources that works. Notes are meant to be like footnotes.

  Y It is correct. See MOS:NOTES: For a list of explanatory footnotes or shortened citation footnotes: "Notes", "Endnotes", or "Footnotes". For a list of full citations or general references: "References" or "Works cited". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "But the Apollo 1 fire on January 27, 1967, had shaken faith in NASA, and the cost of the Vietnam War was inexorably rising. NASA's appropriation was cut to $4.59 billion, with AAP receiving only $122 million.[3]When the eleven new astronauts reported for duty on September 18, 1967, they were met by Shepard and Slayton." Don't start the sentence with but and spaces between sentences.

  Y Added a space. And the idea that and must not begin a sentence, or even a paragraph, is an empty superstition. The same goes for but. Indeed either word can give unimprovably early warning of the sort of thing that is to follow. Kingsley Amis, The King's English (1997) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Chapman found they he really enjoyed flying, especially in the T-38. Musgrave and Allen topped their classes, and Chapman came second in his" Would make more sense if the two statements about Chapman were grouped together.

  Y Good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ok everything else looks good! starsandwhales (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that when NASA Astronaut Group 6 reported for duty they were told they were not required, and they started calling themselves the Excess Eleven? Source: O'Leary, The Making of an Ex-Astronaut, pp. 80-82. Offline I'm afraid, so AGF.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1982 Women's Cricket World Cup Final

Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice article! buidhe 05:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)