Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2021 [1].

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster edit

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1986 disaster during the launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger that killed all 7 astronauts aboard. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support with regard to FA Criterion 1A. Graham Beards (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding alt text
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:RogersCommission-v1p57_cropped.jpg: if I'm understanding correctly, the Rogers Commission as an entity is separate from NASA, and therefore this should not have a NASA tag
    Tag changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Challenger_explosion.jpg: neither of the Photo ID links are working for me, and the Flickr link has an NC license. Is there an alternate link?
    I dug around on NASA Images and couldn't find one; I think the only option is to use it under WP:FAIR. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From the FP nomination I found this, which looks like the original source, not copyrighted. I would suggest to revert to the original image, though, or state clearly that this is an edited version. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this is still pending? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Missed this. I'll replace the photo with the version supplied by Kusma. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated the infobox photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Booster_Rocket_Breach_-_GPN-2000-001425.jpg: none of the source links appear to be working. Ditto for File:STS-51-L_Recovered_Debris_(Burn_Marks_on_the_SRM)_-_GPN-2004-00004.jpg, File:Space_Shuttle_diagram.jpg and File:Rogers_Commission_members_arrive_at_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg, as well as the source image for File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg
    Added new links for STS-51-L_Recovered_Debris_(Burn_Marks_on_the_SRM)_-_GPN-2004-00004.jpg and File:Rogers_Commission_members_arrive_at_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is "File:Space_Shuttle_diagram.jpg"? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was in the navbox that was removed per below. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the archive URL of the source image [2] that was then used to create File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg. The latter can be used now. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Challenger_Memorial1.JPG needs a tag for the memorial itself
    I'm a little confused; are you asking for the license info to be added to the permission parameter? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No - the licensing given is that of the photographer, but the memorial itself could potentially qualify for copyright protection, and the US does not have freedom of panorama, so a separate tag is needed to cover the copyright of the memorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find the license for the memorial; I removed that photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CCCP_Buran.png: don't see that licensing at given source.
    Removed that navbox. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I think I have addressed all of your points. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Eewilson... pending other reviews edit

Pending other reviews (sources, etc.), I support. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, and related things. It's a long article, so likely to take it in pieces.

  • Explain or link "aft" - or "aft field joint attachment"
    Looks like it's already linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the Lead. That's where I was looking. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown;" The exact timing of the deaths?
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Morton Thiokol be hyphenated or unhyphenated? Shouldn't it be consistent throughout the article?
    McDonald's book doesn't use hyphens; I've standardized the article to "Morton Thiokol". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "lift off" two words or a compound word?
    "liftoff" is a compound word in the Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionaries. Standardized to one word. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each field joint was sealed with two rubber O-rings around the circumference of the SRB and 0.280 inches (7.1 mm) in diameter." Unclear sentence.
    Reworded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extruded" - clarify or link to Wikipedia or Wiktionary
    Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tang and clevis" or "tang-and-clevis" - hyphenated or not? Might depend on usage. Check it.
    According to McDonald, it is a hyphenated word. Only use in the article of an unhyphenated version is when describing how the tang and clevis bent away from each other. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Joint rotation, which occurred when the tang and clevis bent away from each other, up to .052 inches (1.3 mm), which reduced the pressure on the O-rings and weakened their seals, making it possible for combustion gases to erode the O-rings." This needs a little tweaking to be an actual sentence.
    Changed wording. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Verification/Certification Committee" - is that the actual name of the committee and can you specify with whom the committee was associated? Was it independent? Did it consist of NASA employees? Morton-Tiokol?
    It's the actual name (p. 125 of the Rogers Commission). I added that it was a NASA committee. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "further tests on joint integrity, to include testing in the temperature range of 40 to 90 °F" The comma after integrity can be removed.
    Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence has some confusing pronoun/noun and verb tense usage, thus making it unclear: "McNair and Resnik would deploy the Shuttle-Pointed Autonomous Research Tool for Astronomy (SPARTAN) satellite, which has previously flown aboard Discovery in June 1985, would photograph the comet for two days and then be recovered and returned to Earth."
    Split into two sentences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. I did a bit of grammar correction, but good. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additionally, Onizuka planned to observe and photograph the comet from Challenger flight deck." Either "from Challenger's flight deck" or "from the Challenger flight deck".
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based upon O-ring erosion and blowby that had occurred in warmer launches" What's a "blowby"?
    Removed. "O-ring erosion" should explain the problem well enough. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So we've still got a couple of instances of the word "blowby" in the Rogers Commission section, and there is no explanation of what blowby is. Can you remedy that? Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Took the term out entirely and just said it was gas blowing by the O-ring. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha... I just Googled "blowby". So apparently, it's pronounced with a long I at the end (as I'm sure you know), and I was pronouncing it "blow-bee". <eyeroll> No wonder it wasn't making sense to me. Maybe instead of "gas blowing by the O-ring", clarify whether the O-ring was blowing the gas or whether the gas was blowing from somewhere else and near the O-ring ("blowing by" could mean either). Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! Understandable mistake; it's not a common word. Changed it to "blowing past". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good. Check. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this whole event was a sad circus of error and hell. I will never forget it. :( Continuing later...

Eewilson (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[reply]

  • I don't see where the acronym "SSME" is spelled out the first time it is used.
    Spelled out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out "max q" as "maximum dynamic pressure (max q)" the first time it is used so the reader doesn't have to click the link to understand the term. Also "g-force," "apogee,"
    Explained. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acronym "LOX" at "LOX tank" needs to be spelled out first time.
    Spelled out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OH! That makes sense. :) Had no idea. Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...until the range safety control officer initiated their self-destruct charges..." It is unclear here who and where the range safety control officer was.
    Added the RSO is on the ground; is that what you are looking for? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. That's good. However, in the section "Vehicle breakup", text is written like this: range safety control officer, in lowercase with no acronym. Later, in the "Recovery of debris and crew" section, it's spelled in title case as Range Safety Officer (RSO) with the acronym and wikilinked. If these are the same thing, put the wikilinked part with the acronym RSO up higher in "Vehicle breakup" and just use the acronym later (if you choose to use it at all - otherwise just leave it out of the article all together). Also, is it an actual title? Then it should be title case. If not, then not. Be consistent with that. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Standardized and changed to lower-case; inconsistency between sources resulted in this, but I'm going with the wording from the Rogers Commission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "middeck" hyphenated or one word?
    Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyphenated. Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but this system would not have been usable during an explosion during ascent" See if you can change one of the "during" to a different word
    Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the first "during" to "in". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There must have been 3 "during"s in that sentence! Look in section "Space Shuttle Challenger disaster#Prospect of crew escape", second part of the final sentence in the paragraph. See what you can do with that one, but if you think it needs both of the during, then it should be fine. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Think I fixed it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Check. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All nine joints on each SRB were disabled, which many of the broken sections subsequently breaking into smaller pieces." Something is wrong with this sentence.
    Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Decided to remove the entire sentence; it doesn't add to the narrative. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resnik's remains were not recovered or were not identified? No mention of her burial. If this is the case, perhaps that should be mentioned in the Funeral ceremonies section.
    As far as I can tell, Resnik's family has never publicly stated what happened to her remains. I found a forum post (definitely not WP:RS) that said she was buried at sea, but couldn't find anything else. As I couldn't find any sources that specifically said her family refused to share what happened to her remains, I decided the best course of action was to make no mention of it at all, rather than attribute the lack of information to her family. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see your point on that. Probably best to be kept as you have it. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some minor cleanups.

Without source review, it appears factual without POV or OR. I did not study the relevance of any of the prose, any needs for editing or rewrite, or sources.

Eewilson (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7 edit

General edit
  • Is there a reason why we have both this article and STS51-L? It seems that the two could be merged.
    I think there could be differences between the articles. Doing a quick skim of STS-51-L, there's not much information that isn't in the Challenger disaster page, but the page could, in theory, have more information about the mission itself (experiments, crew, crew selection, training, etc.), much like how there are separate pages for STS-107 and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. I understand there are differences in that comparison, as STS-107 was an entire mission that ended in disaster while STS-51-L only lasted for 73 seconds, but I think there is information that belongs on an STS-51-L page but not the disaster page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It falls in between STS-107 (which went for two weeks, and for which two articles makes sense) and Apollo 1 (which never left the ground and has only one article) but obviously closer to the latter. Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it jarring that "O-ring concerns" comes before "Space Shuttle mission" but maybe that's just a matter of taste.
  • This came up during the GA review. The body of the article started with information about the mission and then went into safety concerns, but the feedback was that it jumped chronologically, as the mission section discusses the run up to launch, followed by a jump back in time to the dangers of the program and the decision to launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead edit
  • I would prefer if instead of "the tenth flight for the Challenger orbiter" it said "the Xth flight of the Space Shuttle and the tenth flight of the Challenger"
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a bit more to say about the impact of the disaster. The Space Shuttle Program was re-oriented away from the launch of commercial satellites.
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink orbiter.
    Why shouldn't this be linked? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops. Unlink the second link to Space Shuttle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link reentry
    Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the orbiter has no escape system" -> the orbiter had no escape system
    Someone else updated this one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O-rings edit
Space Shuttle mission edit
  • Split the second paragrah after "Onizuka planned to observe and photograph the comet from the Challenger flight deck"
    Split. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery of debris and crew edit
Public response edit
  • Indent Roger Commission so "U.S. House Committee report" is not a subheading
    I think Rogers Commission belongs as a top-level heading due to its significance as the official investigation of the disaster. The reason the House investigation is a sub-header is that it appears to mostly be a review of the Rogers Commission rather than a completely separate investigation. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Johnson Space Center
    Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASA response edit
  • can we say what changes were made to the Space Shuttles, to procedures, and to management?
    The article mentions the redesigned SRBs, use of pressure suits, and establishments of the safety office. What else are you looking for? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article says that "the Space Shuttle program resumed its flying schedule". As noted in the previous paragraph, that isn't quite right. The flight rate was greatly reduced.
    Changed the wording to say that it resumed flying. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dick Truly was appointed adminstrator
    This was several years after the fact; I can't find a source that indicates this was because of the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The SSMEs were modified.
    Added, along with some other Space Shuttle modifications. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plans to launch from Vandenberg AFB were scrapped.
    I feel like I've always heard that SLC-6 was cancelled because of Challenger, but I can't find any good sources that indicate it was closed because of the disaster. I'm sure the temporary shutdown of the Space Shuttle program didn't help, but it seems like there were already numerous delays and setbacks at Vandenberg AFB before then. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Much like SLC-6, I think of this more as something that was cancelled during a bad time as NASA; not one that was cancelled as a direct result of the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Teacher in Space Project was cancelled (although it was later revived and McAuliffe's backup, Barbara Morgan later became an astronaut).
    Added this. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of Criticality 1 and 1R items was reduced
    I can't find anything that supports the reduction in Criticality 1/1R items; where did you see this info? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Jay Greene, who should just be "Greene"
    Unlinked and abbreviated. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media edit
  • "General Kutyna" -> Kutyna"
    Shortened. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2009, Allan McDonald, along with space historian James Hansen, published his memoir Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster.[91][2] McDonald's book focused on his personal involvement" Having jsut said he didn't write it, this read oddly. Suggest: "In 2009, Allan McDonald published his memoir written with space historian James Hansen, Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster, which focused on his personal involvement"
    Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy edit
  • Resnick and MacAuliffe also have craters on Venus named after them
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Johnson Space Center
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 I have addressed your points. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma edit

I did a thorough read through of the article as GA reviewer, and the further improvements since then take it to FA level. I just have one observation:

  • A film, The Challenger Disaster, was released on January 25, 2019; it depicted fictional characters participating in the decision process to launch.

This directly follows a line about a different production also called The Challenger Disaster, which is slightly confusing. Naming the film maker and using active voice would fix this. —Kusma (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't come up with a good way to convert this to the active voice; I kept getting stuck on how to say "released" as media cannot release itself. But I added the director for the 2019 movie; I couldn't find the director for the BBC movie from a reliable source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine now. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ReviewSupport by Neopeius edit

Lead edit
  • I'd put the first sentence of the second paragraph as the last sentence of the first paragraph.
    Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O-Ring Concerns edit

I feel like this section throws the reader into the article abruptly. Perhaps 1. renaming the section "Pre-mission concerns (O-Ring issues)" and 2. An introductory sentence to the section: "Almost from conception, the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters, particularly the O-Ring reinforcements for each of their four segments, were noted as an item of concern." Or something along those lines.

I'm not a fan of the new section title; I think that makes it seem just like STS-51-L specific terms (as discussed under "decision to launch") and this should be specifically about issues with O-rings that were noted and discussed prior to STS-51-L. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think your version of the intro throws a lot of information at the reader without explaining it. I've tried to think of a good way to lead with the O-rings, but I keep feeling like the paragraph then has to backtrack to discuss things that were mentioned in the intro (What does an O-ring do in an SRB? What do the SRBs do for the Space Shuttle?). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about "Concerns over the systems that ultimately caused the Challenger disaster dated back to the early 1970s." Then the reader knows we're about to be talking about the systems that failed.
Added with a few extra words. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring may not provide a backup to the primary O-ring,
In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring could not be relied on as a backup to the primary O-ring,
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot has blown past the primary O-ring
In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot had blown past the primary O-ring
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch at the time
The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch to date
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Space Shuttle Mission edit

No issues

Decision to Launch edit
  • Suggest deleting the first sentence of the first paragraph, moving the next two sentences to start the next paragraph, and moving the last two sentences to the start of the fourth paragraph.
    I kept first sentence and brought it to the next paragraph, but otherwise made this change. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems weird to describe the temperature on 1-28 and then go back to the conference on 1-27. How about:
"Weather forecasts suggested that a launch the morning of January 28 would occur during record-low air temperatures for a Space Shuttle launch. Previously, the coldest O-ring temperatures..."
This is what I went with "The air temperature on January 28 was predicted to be a record-low" I think this helps with chronology, as it's a prediction, not the actual temperature. The actual temperature is addressed at the end of the section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest then deleting The weather forecasts predicted record-low temperatures for a Space Shuttle launch so from the second paragraph (which is now part of the first paragraph). Make "A conference call was set up on the evening of January 27..." its own sentence.
    Change made. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Launch and failure edit
Prospect of Crew Escape edit
  • Launch escape systems were considered during the Space Shuttle's development
Launch escape systems had been considered during the Space Shuttle's development
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery of debris and crew edit

No issues

Public Response edit
White House Response edit
  • Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech.
Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials had suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media Coverage edit
  • To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA arranged for many US children to view the launch live at school.
To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA had arranged for many US children to view the launch live at school.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rogers Commission edit
  • It also recommended that the Space Shuttle program's management should be restructured to keep project managers from being pressured by the Space Shuttle organization
Pressured to do/not to do what?
Added " pressured to adhere to unsafe deadlines" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the Space Shuttle's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates.
In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the Space Shuttle's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates had indicated.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. House Committee Report edit
  • The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission on the failed SRB field joint as the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB.
The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission that the failed SRB field joint was the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASA Response edit

No issues.

Legacy edit
  • Onizuka carried a soccer ball with his personal effects that was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough.
Onizuka had included a soccer ball with his personal effects; it was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media edit
Books edit
  • Trento's book argues that the Space Shuttle program was a flawed and politicized program from its inception.
Trento's book argues that the Space Shuttle program had been a flawed and politicized program from its inception.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Film and Television edit
  • The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka for an inaccurate portrayal of events.
The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka as an inaccurate portrayal of events.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further notes edit

This is a great article that just needs the above polishing. I have not done a citation review, and there are lots of citations to review. I leave that to the next person (I would not recommend support until that be done).

@Neopeius: I have addressed all of your points; thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Will review the review tomorrow so I have fresh eyes. :) Thanks for your quick work! --Neopeius (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personal note edit

I was nearly 12 on January 28, 1986. About an hour before launch, my dad was driving me to school, and a report came on the radio. The announcer noted that it was the coldest launch ever, and that technicians were chipping ice off the wings of the shuttle. I told my father, "They shouldn't launch today. It's too cold. Something's going to happen."

An hour later, our social studies teacher wheeled a TV into our classroom and we watched the replay of the disaster...

The disaster was a few years before I was born, so the Space Shuttle was the launch vehicle I grew up with. I learned about the Challenger disaster as a kid, but after reading so much about it, especially the news coming out immediately after the disaster, reminded me of all of the uncertainty and confusion in the news following the Columbia disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Neopeius (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Okay, I got some spare time before the weekend. :) I made suggestions that should be better for you. Other than that, looks good! Thanks so much. And congrats getting a source review. I suspect you'll be good to go by early next week! --Neopeius (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Thanks for the review; I think I have addressed all of your points! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Please run the External Links tool and fix your broken stuff.
    This was run not too long ago. I ran it just now and added archive links, but it doesn't look like it marked any refs as dead links. Is there a broken one in particular? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes AmericaSpace a reliable source? Looking for information on their editorial/fact-checking process, authoritativeness of authors, reference to them from other reliable source referring to them as authoriatiative and reliable.
    Replaced with a better source/removed information not in the new source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 13 is missing a publication/work.
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 15 - "Item no longer available"
    Not sure what the protocol is with a book's website going offline, since the book itself hasn't changed. Regardless, updated the reference to the newer edition of the book that is already used throughout the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 35–36, 43, and others - need consistent italicizing of The New York Times.
    Standardized. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles of newspapers and magazines in general are inconsistently formatted.
    I've standardized the news articles with one another. The scholarly journals should also be in line with one another. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Times I believe has the same paywall model as the LA Times (which you marked as requiring a subscription) so please make sure they're consistent.
    LA Times won't let someone without a subscription read the article, while the NY Times allows a few free articles without one. This is only from my personal testing, but using a cookie-free browser allowed me to read NY Times articles and no LA Times articles. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes collectspace.com a reliable source?
    Replaced with a better source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks good! --Laser brain (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Balon Greyjoy. I think the issues I saw with the External Links tool must have been temporary because it's coming up clean now. Please consider the source review concluded. --Laser brain (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review! Always good to know that no matter how standardized and perfect I think my refs are, there are issues I've missed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

Extended commentary and replies on prose moved to talk page to avoid bogging down the review page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I have concerns about prose (1a). I'm mainly looking at readability and flow, but I'm also seeing what looks like excess detail in places. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I'm watching the article and the FAC with great interest and I'm very impressed with the improvements so far. I haven't reviewed all the changes yet but you're definitely on the right track. I'll be back over the next couple of days to reply in more detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that I'm headed in the right direction! I'll make some more edits today, but I'm leaving for the long weekend, so I won't be making any edits between Wednesday night and Monday morning (UK time). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed. I think we're almost there. I'm happy with the quality of the prose, which is much improved. I've made a few copy edits; please check those. I think a sentence or two about the history of the space shuttle program would be helpful at the beginning of the Space Shuttle section for a little context. And I think there's still a bit too much detail in the O-rings section. I feel some of the names/dates/places could be trimmed to improve readability and focus on the details that are relevant to the Challenger disaster. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints with your copy edits; thanks for getting that done! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence about the history of the Space Shuttle program (when it started; what the shuttle's primary role is). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed some of the wording in the O-ring section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I think I have addressed your points; let me know what you think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe all my concerns have been addressed. While I mostly focused on prose and readability in my comments, I'm as satisfied as I can be that all the criteria are now met. Kudos to Balon Greyjoy for putting so much work into this important article and for responding to comments so thoroughly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster/archive2&oldid=1055816625"