Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleSpace Shuttle Columbia disaster has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 20, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 17, 2022Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Disintegration photo[edit]

Is there, anywhere, in existence a high quality photo of the disintegration, with size of at least 800x600? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwenger (talkcontribs) 00:54, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Outcome of the Disaster[edit]

In the right part of the screen it says vital information, like launch date, casualties and so on. One thing I noticed was that in the outcome section it says "Outcome: shuttle grounded for 29 months". To me that seems a bit misleading. As the shuttle disintegrated and was never fully recovered. A more correct term would be "Total loss of vehicle and crew" or "Shuttle grounded permanently". Think that this mistake is just a typo or a tiny mistake, but I think that it is important to fix it so we have a true fact on the page, and not something missleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.121.134 (talk) 11:30, April 5, 2021 (UTC)

 Done How about [1]? VQuakr (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section restructuring[edit]

I'm planning on restructuring this page's sections. As a rough version:

  • Safety concerns
  • Space Shuttle mission
    • Pre-mission and crew
    • Launch and debris strike
    • In-orbit
    • Reentry
    • Crew survivability
  • Recovery
  • Public response
  • Columbia Accident Investigation Board
  • NASA response
  • Legacy

This follows a similar structure to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster page. I think this provides more of am organized and chronological flow than the current article's structure. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legacy section too long[edit]

I'm removing a good portion of the "Legacy" section, as it covers many similar renamings/honorings/mentions of the STS-107 crew. Please tag me here if you have any questions or concerns on what I leave in or remove. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picking this one up. I won't be able to start the review until the weekend, but since it has been sitting here since August that should be okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! It's the US Thanksgiving period, so I may be tied up as well with family in town, but will be as a responsive as possible! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article looks very good.

Lead[edit]

Background[edit]

Flight[edit]

Recovery of debris[edit]

  • The last two paragraphs are out of order. Suggest moving both up before the previous paragraph?
    Switched. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "is stored in unused office space" Is it still there in 2022?
    Couldn't find an answer, so I changed it to past tense. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The bit after "NASA conducted a fault tree analysis" coyuld be moved into the next section
    If I remember correctly, I debated where this information belonged when I wrote these sections. I decided to keep it in the recovery section because it was a process used to identify what debris to focus on finding. I would like to keep it where it is, but I'm willing to change it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Columbia Accident Investigation Board[edit]

NASA response[edit]

Legacy[edit]

  • The Legacy section seems out of order to me. Suggest moving all the events into chronological order.
    I decided to group this section together by category. I think it makes more sense than keeping it strictly chronological (e.g. official government memorial, Opening Day of baseball, Amarillo airport, Arlington Memorial). Do you think that works? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images[edit]

  • No concerns - all are NASA images.

Sources[edit]

  • fn 35 Popular Science should be italicized. (Suggest using cite magazine template)
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • fn 82 The Edwardsville Intelligencer should be italicized. (Suggest using cite news template)
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No concerns about the quality of souces.

Article is of the required quality. The above mainly proves that I have read it. Placing on hold for up to 90 days. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I addressed your comments, with quite a bit of help from JustinTime55. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Meets GA standards
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.

Infobox image[edit]

@Balon Greyjoy: Current image doesn't work with old caption. Am unfamiliar with the subject of this article and can't change this myself. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 12:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Good luck with your FAC! — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 02:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grammatical error[edit]

There is a grammatical error in the following sentence, as it reads incorrectly: "Hot gas entered the disintegrating crew module, burning the crew members, whose bodies were still somewhat protected by their ACES suits as turned into charred clothing and flesh." I cannot, however, work out what the intended meaning of the last part of the sentence is for me to correct it effectively. Changing "as" to "was" may be part of the solution, but I am lost as to how to reword the sentence prior to this. If you are to read the above sentence, I'm sure you will grasp where I am coming from. I would like to say that my English and grammar are above par; this, however, has me truly stumped. Other people's input into this issue would be appreciated. BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 22:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out - looks like someone added it, along with a bunch of other nonconstructive stuff. I've removed it. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]