Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

[edit] Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.

Self-nomination. This article reached GA status at the beginning of December. Since then it has been improved further and has received some positive comments in both a Biography peer review and a general peer review. Thus I believe that it is ready to be nominated as a FAC. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. MLilburne 17:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Pls make sure all refs are complete and that websources have last access date - I did the last ref as an example. Most of the refs look good, so there shouldn't be much to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I will add the last access dates, but I was hoping to keep the references in the slightly shorter form because there are so many of them, and because further information is available in the bibliography right below. However, I'll fill them out if people feel that's the right approach. MLilburne 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected, I just noticed that you also listed the websources in the References section, including last access dates - that works for me. (Some editors only list books below, and I failed to check.) You may revert my addition, or I can do it if you wish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, glad that's cleared up. I'll revert the changes--I started doing a couple of my own. MLilburne 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The article looks structurally very sound: I'll print it out to read thoroughly as soon as I have a large block of free time, but it's looking like a Support candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support with a list of minor quibbles/questions/comments - I read a hard print copy, so have not checked wikilinking:
  • I would use more commas - could be just my style, defer to others.

This does seem to be a stylistic thing. My own style has always been comma-heavy, but I think quite a few were taken out of the article at the peer review stage. I'm neutral on the issue at this point.

• • one year he had a batting average of .340.[5] It might be "prettier" to avoid the dot number dot number combination in the batting average; a suggestion is, he had a batting average of .340 one year.[5] (Wonder how the baseball Project deals with this - probably no one cares.)

I take your point, but the second phrasing strikes me as a bit awkward. Will see if I can come up with a better way to phrase it.

• • Two areas of the text left me with questions to the point of distracting me from continuing to read: the burned right hand, and the ulcer. When I hit the comment about the hand, I wondered how severe it was, how disabling it was, how it happened, etc. I looked back at his picture, and found him covering his right hand, making me even more curious. This was never resolved/explained. Since it appears to have been significant enough to affect his career path, would more detail be appropriate? Maybe it could be mentioned in Early life, with a statement that it was to later affect his career path. Similar with the ulcer: since he was about to change careers just before launching into what would seem to be the most stressful part of his career, what became of the ulcer? It seems that might be resolved, or mention of the ulcer could be left out.

Fair points. Will think about them a little bit and try to address them.

• • In 1957, the flight of Sputnik 1 prompted the United States ... Would it help our younger readers to say the Russian flight of Sputnik 1, so they don't have to click on the link to understand the context? (Yes, I have little faith in US public schools.)

Done.

• • One of Kraft's most important contributions to the practice of manned spaceflight ... deleted the practice of?

My intention was to highlight the practice as opposed to, say, the engineering work, but I agree that it is awkward and will take it out.

• • Something wrong here: A loose heat shield could cause the capsule would burn up during re-entry.

Fixed.

• • Only ten years ago, Kraft had joined Bob Gilruth's newly founded Space Task Group. Only ten years before or earlier? Not sure on that ...

I'll change it to 'earlier'.

• • One cite needed, on Kraft Elementary School, located in Hampton, Virginia near Kraft's hometown, was named for him.

That's the one fact that I didn't put into the article. I'll see if I can find a citation.

• Nice job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it, in parentheses"- per WP:MOS. So please spell out NASA and NACA (and other acronyms, if any) first, then use abbreviations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't quite fit the full version of "NASA" into the first sentence, but I have spelled out both in the second sentence. Hope that's all right. MLilburne 13:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. As I said in the biography peer-review, it looks a great article.--Yannismarou 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is an amazing article. It's comprehensive, well-researched, extensively documented, and just plain fun to read. Of course it helps that the subject is such an interesting character, but still. My only reservation is about the "Apollo 1" section. I've read the article multiple times, but it wasn't until I read the source documentation that I realized that Kraft was actually flight director during the fatal Apollo 1 test. Reasons: the preceeding paragraph (in the "Gemini" section), states that Kraft stepped back from Mission Control. Then, in the "Apollo 1" section, we read that Kraft expected to return to his role at MCC. Finally, the section states that Kraft was in Mission Control at the time of the fire, and that there was little he could do. The impression I got from all this was that he was some kind of bystander or spectator, not the one at the heart of things. Maybe an addition somewhere stating that he had returned to the role of flight director prior to the test would clarify things. Otherwise, excellent work! --Plek 11:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll clarify that. Thank you for all your kind comments and for your work on the article. MLilburne 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nice article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• FULL SUPPORT. This is an excellent article that does Wikipedia proud. —ExplorerCDT 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.