Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Joseph Francis Shea

Joseph Francis Shea

Another in my series of NASA engineers and managers. This article is up for GA status at the moment, but given the backlog over there it may take some time to be dealt with; I hope that it's not a problem to have it going through both processes at once. I'm hoping to nominate it as a FAC in the not-too-distant future, so any comments or suggestions for improvement would be very welcome. MLilburne 10:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's GA now. MLilburne 15:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

You put the notice about the GA promotion, in order to reprimand me for delaying to review the article, hmmm?! (joke) But it seems I knew what I was (not) doing; the article is very nice as usual. Congratulations for GA promotion, and some minor remarks, which I hope could help:

"Shea found the time to teach at the university and to hold down a job at Bell Labs.[1][2]" You could avoid to have citations in a row like here, by combining them in one citation. There are articles you could check for this (Tourette syndrome, Battle of Edson's Ridge).

Fixed.

"His contribution to the Titan I project was significant; as George Mueller writes, "he contributed a considerable amount of engineering innovation and project management skill and was directly responsible for the successful development of this pioneering guidance system."" Maybe you could avoid the slight repetition in the prose here.

Oh dear, I can't believe I didn't notice that! Fixed.

"In 1961 Shea was hired by Space Technology Laboratories, a division of TRW Inc., where he continued to work on ballistic missile systems." One of the one-sentence, stubby sentences I do not like! But, again, it is not something grave.

I don't like it either, but unfortunately the bare fact is all the information that I have available. I'll continue to think about my options.

Not much info about his personal life. Wasn't he married?

Yes, he was, but again, all I have is the bare fact. I don't, for example, know when he was married, so that makes it hard to work it into the body of the article. I have mentioned his family in the context of who survived him after his death.

"In film and fiction" is stubby, but I'm not sure what should be done with it.

I'm not sure either. I've searched for reviews mentioning Shea's role, but have found nothing, so just stated that it existed. I own both the book and the miniseries, and could put more details in from them, but am hesitant for fear of an OR tone. I have also considered just removing the section entirely, since there are not many options for improvement. Which of the three options do you think is best?

--Yannismarou 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remain in awe that you manage to peer review all the article listed here! Your help, whether late or not (also a joke!), is greatly appreciated. I've left my responses above. Thanks again. MLilburne 10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plek's comments

Another excellent article in the making! It still needs some work, though, but it's shaping up nicely indeed. Here are my comments (in pseudo-random order).

I am making my way through Chariots for Apollo at the moment, having started with Chapter 5 (1963 and beyond). Obviously, I am taking note of Shea's role in particular. What strikes me is that, time and again, Shea is credited with successfully resolving differences between feuding partners and bringing them together: the NASA centers amongst themselves, the centers versus NASA HQ, NASA versus the many contractors, etc. While his engineering background is a significant influence, it seems to me that Shea's greatest asset during this period is his ability to cajole, convince and unite the many different and differing groups involved in Apollo.
Having said all that, I find the insight above somewhat missing from the article. In particular, the "Program manager" section seems to focus more on the pain in the ass he (undoubtedly) was, but leaves his accomplishments rather underdeveloped. Look at the opening sentences of the four main paragraphs: "Shea's relationship with the engineers at North American was a difficult one.", "Shea was a controversial figure...", "The friction between Shea and Marshall..." and "While many engineers considered Shea to be abrasive". Not really flattering, is it? Granted, it does end with "he was taking an effort that had been foundering and driving it forward", but you might want to balance things a bit, and explore the management side of his role somewhat further.
- Note: after reading the article again, it did seem more balanced than I thought it was first time around. I'm retaining the comment, though, to illustrate what my first impressions were after just reading the "Program manager" section. It might be useful somehow.

Other comments:

rather, he hoped to become a track star — It might be due to cultural differences, but it wasn't immediately clear to me what a "track star" is. I'm assuming something like "professional athlete" is intended here.

Fixed.

In 1946, he was commissioned as an ensign in the Navy, and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics in the same year. — Isn't "in the same year" redundant?

Fixed.

In the part beginning with Shea's speciality was systems engineering ... , there's some repetition: "contribution/contributions/contributed".

Fixed.

In December 1961, NASA invited Shea to interview... — How did NASA find Shea and why did they invite him for an interview?

Added information.

When Shea first began to consider the issue in 1962, most NASA engineers—including Wernher von Braun— — At that time, von Braun was Director of Marshall Center, right? I'm not sure if designating him as one of the "NASA engineers", as the sentence seems to do, is therefore entirely accurate or appropriate.

Fixed.

Holmes put the letter on my desk and said, "Figure it out." — Great quote!

Thanks! I always enjoy using oral histories.

Only now I discover that you already described Shea's role in uniting the NASA centers. Hmmm... this alters my initial comment about the "Program manager" slightly, but I think the argument is still valid. Somewhat. ish. Just see what you make of it.

It is still a valid point, I think, and I'll discuss it once I've worked my way through the smaller issues.

Despite the best efforts of Shea and of North American — Smells a teeny weeny POV-ish to me.

Removed this phrase altogether... on reflection it doesn't seem necessary.

During pad testing, the spacecraft suffered a number of technical problems, including a glitchy communications system. — Reads a bit strange: I don't think a glitchy comms system is a technical problem; it's causing it. It's the glitches in communication that is the technical problem. Maybe I'm just nitpicking here (or just plain wrong).

Either way sounds fine to me, but I will change the phrasing.

Backup commander Wally Schirra — Not explained what Shirra was a backup commander of, exactly.

Fixed.

I know the article isn't about them, but considering how the Apollo 1 fire affected Shea, shouldn't the astronauts be identified by name?

Yes, good point, I've done this.

By contrast, North American executives blamed NASA management for its decision to pressurize the command module with pure oxygen, in which almost any material—including Velcro, with which the cabin was filled—would instantly burst into flames. — Well, we'd still need a spark for that to happen, right? Currently the sentence implies spontaneous combustion.

Indeed it does! Fixed.

...Joseph Shea remained haunted by the feeling that he, personally, was responsible for the deaths of three astronauts. For years after the fire, he displayed the portrait given to him by the Apollo 1 crew in the front hallway of his own home. — I think the article currently gives insufficient evidence of Shea remaining haunted by feelings of guilt. Only the portrait is given as evidence of that (at least, in this section). Isn't it possible that he just liked the picture?

You're right, it does need more evidence. (The guilt that he felt is not really in question, and I think I sort of took it for granted.) I'll think about what to add.

On 7 April it was announced... — By whom? To whom?

Not specified in the sources I have. It may have been a press release but I wouldn't want to speculate.

(He was not called to testify before the congressional inquiry.) — I find the parenthetical thought slightly out of place here. Is there a way to elegantly integrate it into the prose somewhere (and to lose the brackets)?

Fixed, I think.

Is it known what those "health reasons" were, exactly, and what he died of? After setting up signs of dementia praecox earlier in the article, I think the conclusion should be more specific. The article now sort-of implies that he became demented, but isn't really explicit about it.

Unfortunately I don't have any further details about his health problems or his death. It's my personal opinion that the symptoms reported in 1967 and 1993 sound rather similar, but to say anything along those lines would almost certainly be OR, and I'm certainly not speculating on what they were symptoms of. I quoted Kraft because it was a very vivid description of Shea's behavior, not because I was endorsing his amateur diagnosis of dementia praecox (in other words, schizophrenia).

Shea was certainly healthy enough to give two very coherent, if not particularly informative, oral histories in 1998. But he did say, in the context of the ISS inquiry, "That's when I got sick." So this is all I know. If you have any more suggestions as to how I could best deal with the limited amount of information available to me, I would be most grateful.

And that's all I can think of for now! Thank you for listening, and good luck! Feel free to call again if you need any help. --Plek 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very detailed comments. It is very helpful to have feedback from someone with the backround knowledge to call me on issues of balance and bias as well as of presentation. Unfortunately I have some academic commitments today, so won't be able to respond to your more substantive points immediately, but rest assured that I'll be working my way through the list when and as I'm able. I'm thinking that maybe I ought to re-read "Chariots for Apollo" too! Thanks again. MLilburne 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked my way through the small points now. (There's one point above on which I'd welcome further feedback.) It's my opinion, after considering your comments, that the article may be a little unbalanced and that I need to spend a bit more time discussing Shea's successes as a manager, and how he got his reputation as a brilliant engineer and manager. It may take another couple of days before I get it all pulled together... MLilburne 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]