Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive2

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

Old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive1

This article has changed very significantly since the last peer review. It was delisted as a GA, had a major overhaul, and was then promoted again. It has been assessed as an A-class article. I am hoping to get the article to Featured Article status if possible. Any comments would be most welcome. MLilburne 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The technical detail in this article is fabulous, but the popular impact is grossly understated. The news coverage and public reaction around the world was enormously exaggerated relative to the number of lives lost and the amounts of money involved. Public awareness of the Challenger disaster ranks at least as high as the Chernobyl meltdown and much higher than the Bhopal disaster, which caused far more fatalitites and costs. Challenger has become a reference point in debates about engineering safety, and is discussed in detail in many university engineering programmes and safety training in large companies. It has spawned dozens of books, documentaries, and training videos. This impact on the popular consciousness merits discussion.--Yannick 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. This is an excellent point, and one which I will certainly address. (Although it will take a bit of time.) In fact, I'm a bit abashed that I missed this side of things. I'm wondering, though, how to structure the article: should there be a differentiation between the impact on popular culture/popular consciousness/discussion of engineering safety? Perhaps they could all be subsections of one overarching section? MLilburne 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll see what I can do. MLilburne 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just started reading this, but will do more later. A few little things that the automated review probably already caught (I fixed a few in one section but now have to go):

I believe that there is always a space between the time and its "am/pm".
The article capitalizes "shuttle" in many places, I think incorrectly. Space shuttle isn't a proper noun so should be lower-case.

--Will.i.am 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the fixes. Thanks for the comments. More would certainly be welcome. MLilburne 18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this article a more thorough read today. Here's some quick comments, but feel free to ignore them if they're too annoying. I also added a few examples of tiny grammar changes that may help you in copy-editing:

the pad technicians could not remove a 'closing fixture' from the orbiter's hatch. -- I'm not really sure why closing fixture is in quotes.

Neither am I. Someone else wrote that paragraph. I'll strike them.

the gaseous hydrogen vent arm retracted -- At first I had a hard time understanding what the ven arm was attached to or why it had to be latched back. At the last sentence in that paragraph (the word 'also'), I finally realized that it was on the ground and could actually come back to hit the shuttle. Rewording might make this a little clearer.

Will see if I can clarify

All times are given in seconds after launch and correspond to the telemetry time-codes from the closest instrumented event to each described event. -- This was confusing because it came after a few times listed. I think your indication of T=0 (which I don't think I saw when I read it yesterday) does a less obtrusive job of getting across the same thing.
The following account of the accident is derived from real time telemetry data and photographic analysis, as well as from transcripts of air-to-ground and mission control voice communications. -- This also seems to come too late. Doesn't this relate to the previous sentences as well?

I'll move both of these sentences to the beginning of the section.

At about T+58.788 -- three decimal places on the second is better than about.
The breakup of the vehicle began at about T+73.162 seconds, and at 48,000 feet (15 km) in altitude. -- no ", and" necessary.

Both good points.

Shortly afterwards, the flight dynamics officer relayed the range safety officer's report that the vehicle had exploded. -- exploded should be changed because in the next paragraph you say "there was no explosion".

Ah well, this is a tricky one. What the flight dynamics officer actually said was "RSO reports the vehicle has exploded." In retrospect we know that was not quite true (or perhaps the RSO meant that he'd exploded the range safety ordnance on the shuttle), but that it what was said at the time. I'll need to clarify that.

it added another orbiter, Endeavour, to the space shuttle fleet in order to replace Challenger, and worked with the Department of Defense in order to put more satellites in orbit using expendable launch vehicles rather than the shuttle. - you don't need a comma before "and" unless you have two independent clauses - i.e. sentences that can stand alone. Scrap the comma, or add an it after "and".

Got it.

That was all I found for now, this is a really nice article! Good luck with it!--Will.i.am 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for taking the time to read the article so carefully. It is much appreciated, and the article is certainly the better for it. MLilburne 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]