Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NASA Astronaut Group 4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051116114502/http://astronautix.com/astrogrp/nas41965.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astrogrp/nas41965.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 4/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 18:46, 8 June 2019 (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:
· · ·

Cleanup

• Article could be clearer if the citations were at the ends of sentences, instead of the ends of phrases. However, this is the editor's choice and doesn't make too much of a difference.

Copyediting

• The following section(s) need to be copyedited
  • The "Background" section should be copyedited because the many commas in some sentences can make them unclear and/or confusing.
  • The "Group members" section should be copyedited because the location of citations isn't consistent. Again, a minor issue.
  • The "Training" section should be copyedited because of incorrect use of semicolons, and unclear pronoun usage.

Miscellaneous remarks:

• Some images do not have alt text, and some of them do not have English captions on the commons.

Response

1. All sections have been copyedited. Spelling and grammar are correct.
2. The only semicolon in the Training section has been removed.
3. All citations in the Group members section are in the Ref column, as is usual for tables.
4. Alt text is not required, even at FAC level

All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

— Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Full group photo

Image S65-36788 has all six astronauts. I found images at Spacefacts (with their watermark), collectSPACE. Looks like the smaller photo is a cropped image of the larger one. So far, all photos I have found with NASA ID numbers are official NASA photos and therefore in the public domain, so these should be too. Could make for a nice addition to the article. Kees08 (Talk) 01:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Career column in Group Members table

I think the text in the Career column of the table in the Group Members section is way to wordy. For a table, it really should be a very brief statement. Otherwise it messes up the table formatting and makes it very hard to read. Would anyone object to shortening those entries and simply leaving out the astronauts full professional history? After all, we do have links to their articles on them and those articles contain all the details. Fcrary (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Leave it alone. It is the same as those for Groups 1 through 3. The Mercury Seven article is featured. Do not remove sourced information from articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Entries in tables are supposed to be short, like a name, a date or a few words. They aren't supposed to be a paragraph or more of prose. Currently, the "career" entries are about 18 characters wide and about 70-75 lines long. That's unreadable. In a useful table, one row shouldn't be taller than a reader's entire screen. If that information is necessary, it belongs in the text of the article not as a table entry. In any case, there is nothing wrong with removing redundant sourced information, and if all the information is in another, linked article, I think it's redundant.

There are other ways to improve the table, such as two row entries with the images and names spanning both rows. But personally, I'd rather get rid of the career column and replace it with a column with a (non-prose) list of degrees (perhaps PhD only) and another column with a (non-prose) list of the missions the person flew on. The rest of the information in the current career entries is in the articles about the individual. Fcrary (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Resize your screen to the standard size, 1024×768 px. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I am using the default size for my laptop and zooming from 110% back to 100% in Chrome doesn't help significantly. I thought the goal for formatting was, to the greatest extent practical, to things readable regardless of the reader's platform and settings. But none of that is relevant. According to the Manual of Style, prose (especially lengthy prose) does not belong in a table. And 971 characters of prose in a single table cell is definitely lengthy and excessive. Fcrary (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine on my laptop at 1920 x 1200 px. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is a vastly abusive and inappropriate comment. An editor can simply not say, "Screw the readers. If they don't have as high a resolution computer as I do, or don't have as big a screen, then to hell with them." An editor who says "It looks good on my computer, so screw every one else." is not a competent Wikipedia editor. So you could please stop being abusive, self-centered and discuss the actual issue? Is lengthy prose acceptable in a table entry? It's a problem according to Wikipedia's MOS. You have repeatedly refused to address that issue. I have tried to focus on that. Why haven't you?Fcrary (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It is acceptable according to the MOS. I have featured articles using the format. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A large part of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables is about when you should use prose rather than a table. E.g. the first paragraph, "sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs". That strongly implies that prose paragraphs and table contents are different things. If lengthy prose, running to multiple sentences, were appropriate in a table, the whole Tables section in the MOS would make no sense. The fact that some featured articles have imperfect style is irrelevant. Mistakes are made and some poor formatting can slip through the reviews of featured articles. "I've gotten away with it in the past" does not excuse repeating a mistake.

But, again, that's not the issue. This is a discussion about how to improve the article. Unless your position is that it's perfect, you need to focus on why the suggested changes would make the article better or worse. Not fixate on the idea that the article is "acceptable" as is. What would be wrong about moving that prose out of the table? Or even the suggested two-row-per-entry table format, with the prose occupying almost the full width of the lower row? Fcrary (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Reformatting the table to look like the episode guides with two rows per entry won't work because of the placement of the images and the sortable columns. As it currently stands, the prose reads fine even on a mobile phone, and the column cannot become too narrow to be readable. The layout is consistent with that of the other Apollo-era astronaut groups. The suggested form has been tried with the later groups, but consensus was that it did not look as good, and did not present the information as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The lists for launches of launch vehicles use that two row format, and they work well. I do not understand why that format would not work in this case. If we think about it, this article's tables could be formatted in a more readable manner. It might mean merging the image and name columns, but I don't see why we shouldn't do that. Since the height of each row is currently driven by that massive amount of prose in the career column, such a merge would not alter the table's readability.

Your claim that it "reads fine" even on mobile phones is false. If that were true, I would never have suggested a change. The fact is that you think it reads fine, and don't seem to care about what other people think. The consistency of the current format with other articles on Apollo-era astronaut groups is irrelevant. If this article can be improved by changing the format, then they would also have to be changed in a similar manner. That's a pain, but if it's an improvement, then we should do so. If you don't like the two-row format, fine. So what's wrong with moving the lengthy prose from the table to the text the article? That is definitely something the MOS recommends. I hate to be rude, but I'm getting a feeling you have a personal interest in this. Were you the person who worked on the article to get it classified as a "good article"? If so, do you have strong feelings that it's perfect and that any suggested changes are accusations that your work was flawed? If so, you should remember that Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to think that way. Our work on an article does not mean we own the article. Fcrary (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a shorter summary of a couple/quad short sentences should appear in the table instead of the lengthy prose. I suggest that the lengthy prose be moved to a list of astronauts in paragraph form below the table to supplement the table. Alternatively, the table itself could be reformatted to appear like episode list tables, with the large prose section spanning the entire table from left to right, below a line of stats, and the photo spanning both of these rows. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

An example:

Example 1

Table with two rows per astronaut

The Scientists

Image	Name	Born	Died	ref
	Career
	Owen K. Garriott	Enid, Oklahoma, November 22, 1930	April 15, 2019
	Garriott received a B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Oklahoma in 1953. From 1953 to 1956 he served with the U.S. Navy as an electronics officer. He then entered Stanford University and earned an M.S. in 1957 and a Ph.D in 1960 in electrical engineering. He became an assistant professor, and then an associate professor in the Electrical Engineering department there. His first space flight was in July 1973 as Science Pilot on the Skylab 3 mission, the second crew of the Skylab space station. He was Deputy, Acting and Director of Science and Applications at the Johnson Space Center from 1974 to 1975 and 1976 to 1978. As such he was responsible for all research in the physical sciences at the Johnson Space Center. From 1984 to 1986, he was Project Scientist in the Space Station Project Office. He flew in space a second time on STS-9 Columbia in November 1983 as a mission specialist on the Spacelab mission. He retired from NASA in June 1986.

Example 2

Table with list underneath

The Scientists

Image	Name	Born	Died	Notes	ref
	Owen K. Garriott	Enid, Oklahoma, November 22, 1930	April 15, 2019	Garriott first flew on Skylab 3 in 1973. He flew for a second time on STS-9 in 1983.

Owen Garriott

Garriott received a B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Oklahoma in 1953. From 1953 to 1956 he served with the U.S. Navy as an electronics officer. He then entered Stanford University and earned an M.S. in 1957 and a Ph.D in 1960 in electrical engineering. He became an assistant professor, and then an associate professor in the Electrical Engineering department there. His first space flight was in July 1973 as Science Pilot on the Skylab 3 mission, the second crew of the Skylab space station. He was Deputy, Acting and Director of Science and Applications at the Johnson Space Center from 1974 to 1975 and 1976 to 1978. As such he was responsible for all research in the physical sciences at the Johnson Space Center. From 1984 to 1986, he was Project Scientist in the Space Station Project Office. He flew in space a second time on STS-9 Columbia in November 1983 as a mission specialist on the Spacelab mission. He retired from NASA in June 1986.

-- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

I'd be happy with either of those. But I think I'd prefer to keep the degrees in the table (that was why I was reading this article and got annoyed about the formatting.) Perhaps something like:

The Scientists

Name	Born	Died	Education	Missions	ref
Owen K. Garriott	Enid, Oklahoma, November 22, 1930	April 15, 2019	BS Electrical Engineering, 1953 MS Electrical Engineering, 1957 PhD Electrical Engineering, 1960	Skylab 3, STS-9

Owen Garriott

Garriott received a B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Oklahoma in 1953. From 1953 to 1956 he served with the U.S. Navy as an electronics officer. He then entered Stanford University and earned an M.S. in 1957 and a Ph.D in 1960 in electrical engineering. He became an assistant professor, and then an associate professor in the Electrical Engineering department there. His first space flight was in July 1973 as Science Pilot on the Skylab 3 mission, the second crew of the Skylab space station. He was Deputy, Acting and Director of Science and Applications at the Johnson Space Center from 1974 to 1975 and 1976 to 1978. As such he was responsible for all research in the physical sciences at the Johnson Space Center. From 1984 to 1986, he was Project Scientist in the Space Station Project Office. He flew in space a second time on STS-9 Columbia in November 1983 as a mission specialist on the Spacelab mission. He retired from NASA in June 1986.

The main problem I see (other than my mangling the sorting when I merged the image and name columns) is that we do want consistency with other NASA groups, and for the earlier ones, their military background would be of more interest than their education. I guess having the same column, with a different heading and contents might not be too inconsistent. (I.e. consistent in the sense of having one column in the table about their professional background, with the specific aspect of their professional background varying from article to article.) Fcrary (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I can handle complex table formatting and sorting. (I thought the tweak I made would have resolved your original problem.) We don't need the tables in the different articles to be completely consistent, but they should be consistent enough that the readers can compare one against another. As you say, for pilots, military background (service, rank, combat missions, test pilot training) is generally more important that education, but it was always a key demographic. (Two of the Mercury Seven had not graduated, but that would not be allowed in later selections.) I would be interested in knowing more about your interest in their education. I would supposed that the educational institution is also important. The big problem with education is sources: abbreviations for the same degree differ, what their major was (and sometimes even what the degree was) is not always clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

My interest in the education of Group 4 resulted from been half way through reading A Man on the Moon, Andrew Chaikin's history of the Apollo program. In the book, he mentioned that Group 4 were all scientists, but that only one was a geologist. So I looked up Group 4 in Wikipedia to see what the other five members of Group 4 had degrees in. For that sort of thing, the reader wants to glance through a table, not read through lengthy prose. Fcrary (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There isn't much interest in the scientist astronauts. The Mercury Seven article gets 617 page views per day; the Next Nine get 101; the Fourteen get 68 and this one gets just 59. Schmitt gets 459 per day as one of four surviving moonwalkers, which well above average. It would be good to have their articles in - or at least Schmitt's - in shape before they die, but the interest is not there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)