Talk:Jeannette Piccard/GA2

Jeannette Piccard GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

General:

• The use of "Piccard" is confusing. WP:SURNAME is not entirely clear on this, it recommends using surname alone unless it will be confusing. In this case both the previous reviewer and I were confused, and I think the problem is that when only surname is used, we tend to think of the husband in a married couple, as old-fashioned and sexist as that may be. I would recommend using "Jean" and "Jeanette" whenever the two can possibly be confused. I think I got most of these already.

• Yes. Removed a few more occurrences of "Piccard". Do you think I should call her "Ridlon" in the first section? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think also here first name is better, to avoid confusion with the parents. I changed it. Lampman (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead:

• Too short. An article of this size needs at least two substantial paragraphs of introduction, if not three.

• Slightly longer. Are three short ones long enough? -SusanLesch (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've expanded the lead a little more. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Family and education:

• "who had nine children" – who, the mother or the couple?

• Rewritten. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Roddenberry: this is better now, but generally, one-sentence paragraphs should be avoided. In fact, this is so peripheral to the subject – the article is after all about her, not about him – that it would perhaps be best to relegate it to a footnote.

• Malleus removed to a footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Jean Piccard took positions" - this is unclear, where did he take positions? Did he take several at the same time? It should be rewritten.

• Yes. Rewritten to say they moved to the U.S. when Jean began to teach at MIT. Now the following sentence has them living in four or so states but may be clearer. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

World's Fair 1933:

• Generally speaking, this is a very long and detailed section, where the subject of the article doesn't really figure at all. GA criterion 3b says that the article should stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". That is not the case here; a short summary to provide background would be good, but this is excessive. It should probably be reduced and combined with the next section.

• Yes, thank you. Section cut drastically. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are currently too many images, here; it leads to stacking on large screens. See WP:STACKING for tips on how to fix this, but at least one will probably have to go.

• Two images removed. One box moved to the end of the article. One image added. Do you think the map of the atmosphere works all right where it is? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The opening sentence pre-empt the action a bit too much, it would be better to narrate events chronologically. First of all it should be said who built the balloon, how, why, and in what context (it should be mentioned that "Century of Progress" was also the name of the Expo.) Then the specifics of the balloon should be mentioned, and then its flight history.

• Article was restructured. I don't know yet if it passes muster. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• "He did not have a license,[citation needed] unlike his brother Auguste who did." I’m not sure why there’s a [citation needed] tag in the middle of the sentence. If the given reference covers this, then it can be removed.

• Removed for now. Wednesday a book will arrive here and I'll look it up. (This book isn't sufficiently detailed. No luck.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• "and/or" is not good language, and it raises the question of singular or plural verb form. In this case, based on the source, "and" would be sufficient. Reference should wait until after the comma at least.

• Yes, thank you. Changed to "and". -SusanLesch (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Dow Chemical constructed the gondola designed by Auguste and Jean Piccard, Karl Arnstein[14] of Goodyear built the balloon of rubberized cloth[7] and Union Carbide provided the hydrogen." The mid-sentence references makes the sentence hard to read, try to structure it differently.

• Yes. First part of this sentence expanded. This should separate Arnstein. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Ballooning was a dangerous undertaking, partly because human lungs cannot function unaided over 40,000–50,000 feet (12,000–15,000 m), and partly because the lifting gas used, hydrogen, is highly flammable." – this appears as original research without any references.

• Both parts cited. I hope sufficiently. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hawthorne Gray – also this story needs a reference.

• Removed for now. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Stratosphere flight:

• "Forty-five thousand spectators came to see them go" – this starts in the middle of the story. Begin with what, when and where, then go into details.

• Might need work still. The whole article is restructured and this seems to be okay now. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• "elm trees rather than on a farmhouse" – confusing, why would she want to land on a house? Again, it would be better to move reference to end of sentence, unless there is some pressing reason not to.

• Removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Jeannette observed that the liquid oxygen stopped vaporizing as the balloon descended after the cabin doors were opened." – this sentence needs a comma, though I'm not sure where. It gets slightly different meanings depending on whether it goes after "vaporizing" or "descended".

• Indeed it does. At this time I can't find the reference and so am omitting. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Plastic balloons & Later life, death of Jean Piccard:

• These are two very short sections, and should probably be combined for layout purposes. Also avoid short, one- or two-sentence paragraphs.

• Thanks. Combined into one section. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Cluster ballooning – this concept is introduced without any context.

• I will add that cluster balloons were Jean's area. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Episcopal priest:

• Listing all the ordinands is excessive, if any of them has independent notability then this can be mentioned.

• Removed all but about four of them. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Honors:

• This all needs to be properly referenced, and links directly in the text are not the proper way of doing it.

• Cited and written as prose instead of a list. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Piccard family balloonists:

• This is irrelevant, and should go.

• Removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I finally got around to looking a this again. It looks much better now, there's only a couple of points I'd like to make:

• The lead sentence saying she was the first woman in space is a bit dubious, since the definition has changed, and Tereshkova is today generally considered to hold that honour. I rewrote it to: "in her time considered the first woman in space." I hope this is acceptable.

• I switched the order of balloonist and priest, as she was only a priest for two years towards the end of her life after all. Other than that, it looks fine to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• The rewrite is fine. I had rewritten this because the editors of "Flying" magazine wrote a book in which they said Tereshkova "allowed" that Piccard was the "first woman in space". Since we say that later, I am happy with your change. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I discovered two dead links: #26:AEM Update and #41:St. Philips Episcopal Church Records; these need to be removed. If you can find replacements that would be good, though the information isn't particularly contentious. That's all! Lampman (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ref #26 wasn't needed so I've removed it; the information was covered by #25 anyway. I've updated the url for #41. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, that's all as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry I was too rash on delisting, but I think now we have a very good Good Article after the work that's been done on it. Lampman (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it was rash at all and I apologize for the criticism. Surely this is a much better biography now. Lampman, thank you for your careful attention and review. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)