Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roger B. Chaffee/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [1].

Roger B. Chaffee edit

Nominator(s): Kees08 (Talk) 04:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Chaffee was a promising young astronaut who died in the Apollo 1 fire. He was one of two Purdue graduates to die in Apollo 1. I spent time studying and learning aerospace in Chaffee Hall and wanted to honor his legacy by improving his article. Kees08 (Talk) 04:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if we are accepting the results of the trial workshop, but a source review was performed by Mike Christie. If a coordinator could let me know if a source review is still required, that would be great. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 04:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, I think you might want to cut and paste it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have done that now. To the coordinators: I think this is the first article I have solo-nominated. I have co-nominated John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, and Apollo 11 with Hawkeye7. I am not sure if a spot check of my sources is required, could you clarify that? I can provide pages from the books to anyone that needs it. In the case of the Chaffee book, perhaps literal pages, since the binding fell apart :). Kees08 (Talk) 04:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129 edit

Just a couple of prose tweaks jump out at first read. Nice article.

  • I'd lose the comma in "...completed his Navy pre-commissioning training, and was...".
  • And also in "for the Gemini 3 and Gemini 4 missions, and received".
  • And in "He earned four badges for each of the next two years, and had earned almost all the badges available..." also you can get rid of that I've struck.
  • "...and soon after started building model..." > "and soon began"
Good luck. ——SerialNumber54129 19:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at it. I applied your suggestions. I am a serial-overuser of commas, so I trust when I get feedback that there are too many. Let me know if you come up with any more suggestions. Kees08 (Talk) 03:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Hey there, seeing if you had a chance to look over the article another time. No pressure to give a support/oppose, just reminding you of this in case you forgot. Kees08 (Talk) 04:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:90E0:60B5:AD4F:C85C (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

SR by Mike Christie

I'm not an experienced source reviewer, and was not planning to review one of the workshop articles, but I now think it's a better test case if an inexperienced source reviewer participates, so my review is below.

Notes on 1(c).

  • The sources seem to be high quality and reliable. Chrysler & Chaffee is apparently a juvenile book, but the facts cited from it seem straightforwardly biographical and not controversial, and it's not used beyond his early training. The Burgess, Doolan, and Vis and the NASA biography and report are excellent sources. The newspaper sources look fine for the material they cover; I looked at a few of them.
  • Footnote 1 is a deadlink for me, and there is no archive link.

I have not performed spotchecks for the sources against the text.

Notes on 2(c):

  • The page ranges of the form 5-3–5-4 are ugly to look at; not an issue for FAC, but I think they might look better with a spaced en dash in the middle.
  • You have a link to our newspapers.com article in footnote 44, but not elsewhere; I'm not sure what the rule is but presumably we should either be consistent or just do this on the first appearance of a newspapers.com cite.
  • There's no requirement to add archive links, but you've done so on some of the web citations; you may wish to do so on the others.

Only two of the points above actually require attention -- footnote 1 and the newspapers.com link. Once those are addressed I will support this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kees08, did you notice this review? Just checking. The single-page structure here doesn't make it easy to notice relevant edits on a watchlist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did! Thank you for the review. I am in the middle of moving and ran out of data on my phone so tethering is not going so great. My replies should be straightforward, the only thing I was not sure of was the juvenile book bit. It did not seem like a juvenile book when I read it, so was wondering if worldcat or something told you it was? It could be considered one, not a big deal either way, was just curious. I flipped through my copy enough it was destroyed by use, so cannot check it until I buy a new one. Kees08 (Talk) 02:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just had another look and can't find why I thought that; perhaps I misinterpreted a listing somewhere. Not a problem, in any case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries either way. Newspapers.com should be linked in the first instance and then not again. When I have better Internet I will move it. Archive links are a good idea, will do as well. Will check on the other couple of comments later. Kees08 (Talk) 04:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Fixed the dead url, replaced with the new location. Added archives. Moved Newspapers.com wikilink to first reference. Unfortunately the CS1 help page does not give advice on the page range and spaced endash issue. If you are sure that it is okay, I will fix them all, just wanted to make sure since it will take some time. Kees08 (Talk) 05:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to change it; I think it's ugly but it's MoS-compliant, and changing it might not be. Everything else looks good, so Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Would you be able to perform a spot check on my references, per User_talk:Ian_Rose#Spot_checks_2? I can send along any scans you need. If you are unable to, not a problem, just let me know so I can find another. Kees08 (Talk) 20:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Can you send me these pages: footnote [34] - Thompson, 5-3 to 5-4; [26] - Chrysler & Chaffee, 82; [12] - Burgess, Doolan & Vis, 140; and [20] - Chrysler & Chaffee, 74. I'll also check a couple of the web references. I'll email you in a moment so you have my address. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do tonight. If you want to get a headstart, Thompson is an online reference :). Kees08 (Talk) 18:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sent. Kees08 (Talk) 04:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll have time this morning to do all the spotchecks, but here's a start:

  • after which White in the center seat was to open the plug door hatch, while Chaffee in the right-hand seat was to maintain communications: this is cited to Thompson 5-3-5-4, which as far as I can see doesn't mention Chaffee's role in this way. The term "plug door hatch" is also not used in Thompson, so please just confirm that the term is established elsewhere and cited above this point.
    I found the pages that mention it and cite it. I think I adapted this text from Apollo 1, so I will go through the Apollo 1 article and make the same changes. I need to confirm plug door hatch is the term used for that hatch still. I will go through the whole Apollo program section and make sure there are no more instances like what you have found. Kees08 (Talk)
  • White removed his restraints and apparently tried in vain to open the hatch, which was held closed by the cabin pressure: suggest adding a separate cite for "held closed by the cabin pressure" which is not stated and not really directly implied by these pages of Thompson, though I know it's not controversial.
    Good point, added. Kees08 (Talk)

More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good. Struck one; the other is just waiting for you to confirm that "plug door hatch" is the right term. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Chrysler & Chaffee 74 and Burgess, Doolan & Vis 140; both are fine. Looks like you accidentally sent me Chrysler & Chafee p. 84 instead of 82; can you resend? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. Just sent page 82. Kees08 (Talk) 23:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It supports the material; the "lung capacity" sentence is a fairly close paraphrase, but I think it's OK; it's a straightforward statement of fact and I can't think of a good way to restate it without sounding silly.
  • A new high school opened in 2007 in Jacksonville, Florida, that was named Chaffee Trail Elementary. The source for this is the school district page; unfortunately I don't see anything that demonstrates it was named after Roger Chaffee. I had a quick search elsewhere on the web and in newspapers.com and can't find anything. Do you recall how you identified this as being named after Chaffee?
    It was in the article originally and at some point I took it out. I did a long search last night for it and was unable to find anything that specified it was named after Chaffee specifically. You can see my edit summary I just did, but I removed it.Kees08 (Talk) 23:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 64: no problems.
  • Footnote 54: Regor (Roger spelled backwards), is a seldom-used nickname for the star Gamma Velorum. Grissom used this name, plus two others for White and Chaffee, on his Apollo 1 mission planning star charts as a joke, and the succeeding Apollo astronauts kept using the names as a memorial. I think this should say "plus two others for White and himself", right? The sourcing is fine; you just have a mis-statement in the article.
    Right right. The text came from Grissom's article and I missed that, fixed now thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 23:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 59 & 60: no problems.
  • Footnote 49: no problems.

That seems good enough to me; a couple of minor imprecisions, but nothing serious. Once these are fixed I'm satisfied with the spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This now passes; I've struck two points above. Two requests for Kees08: please verify that "plug door hatch" is the correct term, and please check any other sentences left over from before you worked on the article, since we found an error in the one I checked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, am I right in thinking you consider this low risk and we could leave till after promotion, if not I'm prepared to keep the review open a bit longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking this could be promoted without waiting for a response from Kees08. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plug door is the correct term. I will try to find a cite that says it. Kees08 (Talk) 21:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: It is hard to find since it was a plugs-out test, searching for plug hatch online only reveals search results for the test name. If I search hatch design, I can find a source that describes if being a plug door, but never explicitly calls it that. I will see if I can find something that explicitly says it. Kees08 (Talk) 22:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

  • He was awarded the Air Medal Was there a specific action that earned him the medal? If not, maybe see if you can incorporate the fact into one of the preceding sentences to make it less abrupt.
    I have the specifics of the award in the Awards and honors section. What do you think of removing it from the Navy service section? Otherwise I will expand the sentence with the specifics that I have later in the Awards and honors. Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd put it in one place or the other, and the awards and honors section seems like the logical place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some biographies credit him with flying the U-2 plane to spy on Cuba, but this is erroneous since he was a Navy pilot and the U-2 was an Air Force plane Is this Wikipedia (ie you) telling the reader that this must be inaccurate, or do Burgess, Doolan & Vis tell us that it's inaccurate? It might seem like a small difference, but it's the difference between original synthesis (which is a no-no for an encyclopaedia) and summarising the body of material publsihed about Chaffee (which is what we're here to do).
    Great point! From the book, "Several later biographies would credit him with making U2 spy plane flights over Cuba, but this was just a fanciful misinterpretation." It goes on from there, but yes, Burgess, Doolan, & Vis tell us that it is a common misinterpretation. Do I need to note that, or were you just double checking? Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just double checking. If it's clearly bollocks then noting such in the article isn't an opinion and shouldn't need in-text attribution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chaffee lost consciousness when he experienced myocardial hypoxia, which sent him into cardiac arrest and resulted in cerebral hypoxia. He died from asphyxia due to the toxic gasses from the fire, with burns contributing to his death I'm not sure we need that level of medical detail; I'd be inclined to just say he died from asphyxia caused by smoke inhalation. Also, I'm no expert, but I wouldn't imagine the burns would have had time to contribute to his death—smoke inhalation is usually fatal within minutes or even seconds.
    There were only 11 findings in the Apollo 204 Review Board report, and one was: The rapid spread of fire caused an increase in pressure and temperature which resulted in rupture of the Command Module and creation of a toxic atmosphere. Death of the crew was from asphyxia due to inhalation of toxic gases due to fire. A contributory cause of death was thermal burns. I wanted to accurately represent the finding of the report, which is why I phrased it the way that I did (and intentionally included the thermal burns, as they did). I could remove the hypoxia bits if you think it is excessive detail, I suppose I only included it because it exists. Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, most of the sentence Chaffee lost consciousness when he experienced myocardial hypoxia, which sent him into cardiac arrest and resulted in cerebral hypoxia. He died from asphyxia due to the toxic gasses from the fire, with burns contributing to his death is unnecessary. It's not something I'd withold support over, but I think it's an excessive use of technical terms that I think the average reader might struggle with and which isn't crucial to the narrative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this: Chaffee lost consciousness because of a lack of oxygen which sent him into cardiac arrest. He died from asphyxia due to the toxic gasses from the fire, with burns contributing to his death. Keeps the important bits and got rid of some technical terms. Kees08 (Talk) 04:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, not a lot to criticise. Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at it, let me know on the responses I have above. Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Support. I didn't think there was much wrong with this when I did the source review, and returning for a content review I can find very little to criticize. The prose is a bit dry in places but it's perfectly professional. I copyedited a little; please revert if you don't approve of the changes. Only one note: "mishap" seems too weak a term for a disaster that took three lives; can we find another word? Regardless, this is worthy of the star, so I am supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I checked the edits and they improved the article. Are there particular portions that are dry? I have been trying to spice up some sections of other articles (like the awards section). I would be happy to take a second look at portions you think are a bit dry. I will do a short literary review of what sources called the mishap, and see if a more appropriate word can be chosen. As someone that works in the industry, my guess is that external sources (like the press) will over-emphasize it (catastrophe) and internal sources will under-emphasize it (problem, mishap). But we will see! Kees08 (Talk) 03:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lit review
  • External sources
    • White calls it a "fire", "disaster", "successful failure"
    • Chaikin refers to it as "the Fire" (with a capital F), in as many places as I felt like checking. Not sure he ever refers to it as anything else
    • The chapter title of the Apollo 1 section of Fallen Astronauts is "Countdown to Disaster"
    • Searching through Newspapers.com, "disaster" gives about 77,000 results while "mishap" gives ~240,000 (google is 652,000 to 14.5 million)
  • Internal sources
    • Review board report, page 3-19 uses "mishap", 5-12 uses "disaster" (twice), "accident" is used 93 times
    • Apollo by the Numbers (SP-4029) uses "accident" five times and "disaster" once (chapter is titled The Fire)
Conclusion: industry has dulled my verbage in situations like these. NASA uses accident, everyone else uses disaster. Although I do not think disaster is the best term (at least per Wikipedia's definition of disaster, widespread human, material, economic or environmental loss and impacts), that is the term used to describe the event, so I will change it up. Also, if all goes well, this is the most work I will ever put into changing a single word of an article :). Not sure why I was so interested in what everyone called it! Kees08 (Talk) 04:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Disaster" works for me! As for the dry prose, the section on the fire is engaging, and that's the core of the article. It's hard to make a list of schools attended a gripping read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

No ALT text anywhere I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt text. Please check it if you can. I used 'refer to caption' more than I have in the past; I reread the guidelines and I think it is appropriate, but it would be good to have feedback. Kees08 (Talk) 02:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Addressed both issues. Kees08 (Talk) 03:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I wonder how we know that File:Roger Chaffee Navy Portrait.jpg is from the DoD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. My thought before was that it was most likely DoD, hence the upload. I preempted your question by emailing the Navy earlier tonight, hopefully I get a response. If I do not get a response from them, I will email The Astronauts Memorial Foundation to ask where they got it from. Summary: although it is likely from DoD, we do not know for certain, and I have began communications with entities that should know. Kees08 (Talk) 06:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Navy (politely) told me that I should contact either archives.gov or The Astronauts Memorial Foundation, I have sent the latter an email since it is posted on their site. I will keep you updated on the situation as it unfolds. Kees08 (Talk) 18:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have not heard back from the foundation; do you know of any places to check for the source? I think it is most likely DoD since it looks like your standard Navy portrait, but I am not sure I would be able to prove it. Kees08 (Talk) 06:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't know either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thoughts on this image? Kees08 (Talk) 06:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion to contact archives.gov is not a bad one. I did a reverse image search and couldn't find the image anywhere that would confirm a Navy or DoD provenance. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I have pinged them again. There is a really small photo in his book that says it is from the Navy (a different photo than the one we are discussing), so if it comes to it I can replace the image in the article; but I would rather not due to quality differences. Thanks for the input! Kees08 (Talk) 00:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is about all that's outstanding -- I'll defer to Nikki and/or Jo-Jo as to the whether this is worth holding up promotion over or if it's relatively low-risk and could be finalised post-promotion (no pressure). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Nikkimaria: Pinging in case you had thoughts on Ian's statement. Kees08 (Talk) 04:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with this only under the provision that if a positive answer does not happen after some time, the image is removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, let's go with that then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • Why do we need Chaffee's full name twice in the infobox?
    Removed Kees08 (Talk)
  • "In January 1935, in their hometown of Greenville, Michigan, his father was diagnosed with scarlet fever, and Mike moved in with her parents in Grand Rapids, where Roger was born. " The identity of the "he" in this sentence is a bit confusing. I imagine it's the future astronaut but it could be his father.
    I suppose, but if I use Chaffee I have the same issue. Suggestions? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "the Dean's list" there's probably a need for capitalization of "list", per our article on the subject.
    Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • "He was then allowed to tour on Wisconsin to England, Scotland, France, and Cuba." this makes it sound something of a pleasure cruise. I would stress the serious purpose of the training.
    The source has Chaffee passed with flying colors and the attending physician certified him to participate in the NROTC program aboard the Wisconsin. During the two month cruise, Chaffee docked in far-off ports in England, Scotland, France and the island of Cuba. His biography makes it look like a pleasure cruise (I know it was not), and provides no additional details. Not sure I can do anything about this without any details in the sources. Kees08 (Talk) 04:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a server" I'd like to check what is meant here to ensure we are not running into different understandings of the same word.
    I believe waiter, is there another job the name could mean? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "a gear cutter". I wonder if the reader will know what this is?
    Technically I do not know what it is. I assumed they cut the slots into cylinders, forming them into gears? I tried to look it up and I did not learn anything new. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "at a local small business near Purdue." Some redundancy. I would cut "local".
    Removed Kees08 (Talk)
  • " Following his honeymoon, he reported to the aircraft carrier USS Lake Champlain for a six-week assignment in Norfolk with the Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.[15] By the time Chaffee arrived at the base, the ship had already left port. " Was Chaffee assigned to the ship or the port, initially?
    He was initially assigned to the ship, according to the book, which he missed, and therefore worked temporarily at the port thereafter. Rephrased to try to indicate this. Kees08 (Talk) 04:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This plane was typically flown by pilots with the rank of lieutenant commander or above, but since Chaffee became so familiar with the plane from repairing it, he became one of the youngest pilots ever to fly it.[18]" You could probably get rid of the "since".
    Removed Kees08 (Talk)
  • "By coincidence, he was assigned to a mission where he flew over Cape Canaveral, during which aerial photographs of future launch sites were taken.[20]" Should "future" really be "potential"?
    Technically it is both, and the irony that the sentence is noting is that he was scouting the future launch site he should have launched out of. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "In mid-1962, he was accepted in the initial pool of 1,800 applicants for the third group of NASA astronauts.[4][25]" Is this screening for the selection he made, or is this meant to imply he was a finalist for "The New Nine"? A link to the astronaut group meant might be helpful.
    It was for the third group, I added a link Kees08 (Talk) 05:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was Chaffee's partner in the survival training?
    I am not finding the answer after checking three sources, was there a source you had in mind that would list it? Kees08 (Talk) 06:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Chaffee served as capsule communicator (CAPCOM) in March 1965 for Gemini 3.[29]" He was there for Gemini 3? They were still testing the mew Mission Control room.
    Can you rephrase the question? I must be dense. Kees08 (Talk) 06:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had Chaffee been selected for any Gemini backup crews? Was he originally on AS-204's backup crew? The description of events is unclear.
    He had not been selected for any backup crews. Do you have Slayton's book? Not sure the information would be anywhere else. I checked several sources. They just go from not talking about being selected, to being selected for AS-204, as abruptly as the article has it. Do you have recommendations on where to look? Kees08 (Talk) 06:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said of events between March 1966 and January 1967? From what I've read, the crew spent most of their time at Downey. And it wasn't just a question of "seeing" or "witnessing it", most of the time the astronauts did quite a bit of work themselves on their spacecraft. Also some mention of Chaffee in his final days might be useful.
  • Was the $100,000 life insurance? If so I would say so.
    Specified Kees08 (Talk) 06:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning the navigation stars called after them and used by the Apollo astronauts?
  • I might mention that he is among the astronauts memorialized on the Space Mirror and the plaque accompanying the Fallen Astronaut memorial on the Moon.
    Regarding the last two comments, should I make the memorials section similar to Gus Grissom? I spent a lot of time on Grissom's and it is more comprehensive. Kees08 (Talk) 07:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did with Grissom.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, me too. I did not think I could do it with Chaffee, but with Newspapers.com I think I can. It might take me up to a week to do, but I will start. Kees08 (Talk) 05:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I owe you information on their activities from March 1966 to January 1967, as well as a complete rewrite of the memorials section. Would you be able to respond to my inquiries above on the other points while I work on those? Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 06:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials should be good now; I just owe you their activities from March 1966 to January 1967, and any other responses you may have to my questions above. Kees08 (Talk) 02:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Alright then Wehwalt, I believe I have addressed all your concerns. If there are other things you would like me to work on or if you have any rebuttals please let me know. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 06:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2019 (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/Roger_B._Chaffee/archive1&oldid=887005545"