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.
You're stuck with me as a reviewer again, Hawkeye7! I saw this pop up a few days ago, and wanted to give the other reviewers a chance to critique it (and give you a break from my walls of text). I intended to improve Gordon Cooper's page about a year ago, as I was working on the Oklahoma astronauts. After reading his fairly disorganized and rambling autobiography, I lost interest and improved the Wally Schirra article instead. I'm impressed by your work on Cooper's page.
I'm trying a new method of reviewing GANs that I saw Gog the Mild use; let me know if you like it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Lead
I know there probably isn't much more to go off of, but the lead section is a little short. Is there any more information about his later life that you would deem relevant? I would include a little more detail about Gemini 5.
"last American to be launched alone to conduct an entirely solo orbital mission" I think this could be shortened to something like "last American to fly on a solo orbital mission," as its implied that he's launched alone if he is solo for the entire mission.
Y I didn't write it, but I think the distinction being drawn here is between a solo mission like Cooper's, and flying solo for a time like Collins did on Apollo 11. Trimmed the wordage. Hawkeye7(discuss) 06:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and education
I would remove "Gordo" from the opening sentence, as his nickname is already introduced in the lead section.
You can't do that. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Hawkeye7(discuss) 06:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Gordo" is a nickname that he later received. I think the sentence about his birth should just include his birth name.
I added "in" before Tecumseh
Fix the grammar on the only child phrase; my take is either "as the only child of..." or "...Oklahoma; he was the only child of..."
"the only child of" is the usual pro-forma. Hawkeye7(discuss) 06:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a good fix for it, but the short sentence "His mother was a school teacher." reads awkwardly. Do you have info at which school she taught, what age, etc.?
Y Source doesn't say. But Cooper's dad was one of her pupils. Added this. Hawkeye7(discuss) 06:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Make the tense consistent in the Oklahoma National Guard sentence
You use the term "American football" vs. "football" twice. Is there any guidance on how this should be used in articles? My perspective (coming from an American who is not a diehard that football means American football) is that you can just say football and link to American football, as Cooper was an American and would have considered himself a football player vs. an American football player. But I can see the other side that a lot of readers will be coming from the perspective of football being what Americans call soccer.
Make Cooper the subject of the sentence about the state championship and shorten the sentence. Also, change "senior high school year" to "senior year in high school." My reasoning is that is how it is commonly referred to in American English, and should be phrased that way when describing an American. My take is: "In his senior year of high school, Cooper played as a halfback in the football state championship."
Keep the tense consistent in the sentence about Cooper learning to fly. I would also move the soloing detail to the next sentence. My take is: "Cooper's parents owned a Command-Aire biplane, and he learned to fly at a young age. He unofficially soloed when he was 12 years old, and earned his pilot's licence in a Piper J-3 Cub when he was 16 years old."
I would break up the sentence about not being able to fly for the Army or the Navy and then enlisting in the Marine Corps, as it's not like he chose the Marine Corps because they would allow him to become a pilot.
Do you have a date (either exact or approximate) for when he left for basic training? I think it's vague to say that he left as soon as he graduated from high school, as that could be a matter of days/weeks/months, etc. Clearly it wasn't too long, as his high school graduation wasn't that long before the Japanese surrender.
Source doesn't say. 13 weeks would have been normal, but the war ended... Hawkeye7(discuss) 06:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would rephrase the "World War II ending before he saw active service," as he was active duty (albeit in training) during WWII, he just didn't deploy in support of it.
The sentence about Navy Prep School/Academy is a bit of a run on, and should be broken up/combined with the next sentence. Additionally, I would rephrase "the man who was the primary appointee made the grade," as it's not clear what making the grade is in this case. My take is "He was then assigned to the Naval Academy Preparatory School for an alternate appointment to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, but was not invited to attend. He was reassigned to guard duty in Washington, D.C., and was serving in the Presidential Honor Guard when he was discharged from the Marine Corps in 1946."
That seems garbled to me. You are not invited to attend, you are appointed by your Congressman. The alternates are in case the primary appointee does not pass the exams. Hawkeye7(discuss) 06:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "made the grade" is a colloqualism and should be changed. It's not clear that means that the primary appointee enrolled at the Naval Academy.
Rearrange the information on the second and third sentences of the final paragraph in the section. Also, in keeping the maiden name formatting consistent with the mention of his mother, I would write it as: "He attended the University of Hawaii, where he met his first wife, Trudy (nee Olson)." I would move the J-3 Cub information to the previous sentence, and state "Cooper moved to Hawaii to live with his parents, and bough a J-3 Cub."
Interesting fact about Trudy's having a pilot's license. The sentence reads awkwardly, and she wasn't a wife of a Mercury astronaut at the time. My take is "Trudy was also a pilot, and would later be the only wife of the Mercury astronauts to have her pilot's license."
I added "they" to the sentence about Gordon and Trudy getting married.
I would shorten the sentence about their daughters, and just say "They had two daughters, Camala Keoki and Janita Lee."
And the reader would be thinking: "along with a son called Guido." Hawkeye7(discuss) 06:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I would change it to "They had two children,..." The "both daughters" part reads awkwardly in the sentence.
I made grammar fixes to the sentences about high school sports. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Military service
I would move his participation in ROTC to the previous section, as he did that at school vs. when he was in the military (admittedly I have a personal bias against service members claiming their time at a service academy or ROTC detachment as time spent in the military)
Fair enough, but it seems more natural here, as otherwise his commission would come out of the blue. Back then, ROTOC was more normal than it is today, and some colleges actually required it. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out the ROTC acronym the first time it is used (wherever it ends up)
If you leave the ROTC statement under military service, combine it with the next sentence to make it flow better "Cooper was active in the Reserve Officer Training Corps at college, and commissioned as a second lieutenant in the US Army in June 1949."
I changed "second Lieutenant" to "second lieutenant"
Change "He was able to transfer his commission" to "He transferred his commission"
The point here is that a certain number of ROTC officers were able to transfer to the new USAF. The AFROTC was yet to produce a sinmgle officer, having been established only in 1946. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it say he "entered" active duty, as "placed on" makes it seem like there were other places that he could have gone.
Change the beginning of the sentence about the T-33 crash to something like "They were both involved in an accident during takeoff from Lowry Field on June 23, 1956, when the Lockheed T-33 Cooper was piloting suddenly lost power." While I would never want to experience their crash (or any plane crash for that matter), it doesn't make sense to describe them as both "nearly killed" and "escaped unscathed."
Make the tense consistent in the sentence about the T-33 crash
Combine the sentence about Grissom attending Flight Test School with the previous sentence. "Cooper and Grissom both attended the USAF Experimental Flight Test School (Class 56D) at Edwards Air Force Base in California in 1956
What deficiencies in the F-106 did he correct and how much money was saved? While I don't doubt Cooper's success as a test pilot, my experience tells me that many military reports attribute small actions with large amounts of money and lives saved.
Y It's easy to do in the Air Force, given the expensive equipment involved, and high number of accidents. Like many aircraft of the era, the F-106 had its share, including an ejector seat that killed the first 12 people who tried to use it. I haven't got the source of the source. It's interesting that you don't doubt Cooper's success as a test pilot, given what Slayton has to say below. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you removed it entirely, which I think is the right call. As for trusting Cooper's success as a test pilot, I understand that Slayton had some less-than-kind things to say about him, and Cooper has become one of the more "forgettable" Mercury astronauts. But I figure he still had to do a pretty good job along the way to pass test pilot school and get selected as a Mercury astronaut. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cooper was rated lowest by his peer group of seven; but he was clearly a natural stick and rudder man, and a good engineer. I was surprised at the high praise accorded to his performance by the NASA official historians. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "was" to "were"
NASA career
Project Mercury
As far as I can tell, the citations used for this section don't make any mention of Cooper reading about the space capsule contract, or that he wasn't surprised when he was selected.
Y Switched the citation; I can't read the one that was there. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the Deke Slayton quote, as it is only one example of someone like agreeing with Cooper's selection. It's no secret that Slayton didn't like Cooper, and I can't help but wonder if Slayton's insults towards Cooper in his book were the result of years of not working well together. Are there any other sources that indicate that others did not like Cooper's selection?
I think it's important. And it's a lot older than it looks. From The Right Stuff, p. 113: Two of the Air Force pilots were from Edwards. That was to be expected; Edwards was the big league. But one of them, Gordon Cooper, was a man Gus had known at Wright-Pat at one point, and Cooper was not in Fighter Ops at Edwards. The very hottest pilots at Edwards, of course, were in the rocket plane projects, the X-series. The best line-test pilots were in Fighter Ops as prime pilots in the testing of aircraft such as the century series of jet fighters. That was what the other Edwards pilot, Deke Slayton, had been involved in. But Cooper - Cooper had graduated from the Test Pilot School and was officially a test pilot, but he had been involved mainly in engineering. Wolfe was writing this circa 1970. He chose Gus Grissom's POV. He did interview Gus; but it is strange that Gus would have forgotten that they were in the same class at the Test Pilot School Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that Wolfe quote just states that Grissom noted that Cooper had never been a fighter test pilot, not that he was surprised by his selection to astronaut. I just think it is placing extra emphasis on the negatives of Cooper's selection, when clearly many people had to give their nod of approval for him over many other qualified applicants.
But not fighter pilots. The text goes on: Not only that, but there was this fellow from the Navy, Scott Carpenter. He seemed a likeable sort, but he had never been in a fighter squadron. He had been flying multi-engine propeller planes and had only two hundred hours in jets. What did this say about the business of being selected as a Mercury astronaut?Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While his test fighter pilot peers in the NASA Astronaut Corps may have disapproved of his selection, Cooper surely had to impress test fighter pilots beforehand to be selected for TPS, and then ultimately as a suitable candidate for the Mercury Seven
"Squeaky-clean" is a colloquialism; replace it with more neutral text
Remove the part about the Atlas rocket exploding. Not to downplay the danger of Cooper's mission, but it wasn't like he was one of the first individuals to fly on an Atlas rocket. I view this detail as more pertinent to Carpenter and Glenn.
Combine the introductory sentences about earning flight pay. My take is, "To continue earning their flight pay, the astronauts would travel to Langley Air Force Base..."
I would remove the competing with the colonels and generals part. It's tough getting your flight hours in for any number of reasons, and I'm sure that office politics were only a part of why it was difficult. Additionally, the wording makes it seem like it was an every-weekend affair to get flight hours, when they only needed 4 hours a month, so I'm curious how difficult it was for them to get the time (even in the non-air-refueling era, this is only 2-4 sorties a month)
Ideally, you could show up on the last day of the month, and fly an eight-hour sortie. This was common in the 1990s, but very popular. So lesser lights would show up each weekend and take what they could get. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence about flying the F-104B comes across as editorialized. My take is "Rather than fly the T-33, Cooper travelled to McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base in Kentucky to fly the higher-performance F-104B."
Readers would not know why. Prefer it as it is. It has confused some writers. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove "all the way" and either state that he traveled to Tyson Air National Guard Base, or state that he travelled the 500 miles from Langley to Tyson ANGB (which I'm showing is in Tennesseee, not Kentucky). Also, I think there could be better wording for "too tame," as the T-33 is still a high performance aircraft, just not as much as the F-104.
Tennessee? That's Gordo for you. Corrected. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While its clear to people who have read too many astronaut biographies what Cooper did, I think it's confusing to say that he reported an issue to the newspaper and then a congressman, as it's not presented as if there is some clear problem. Reword this section to make it seem less like a NASA problem and more of an astronaut's complaint about the allotted aircraft.
I've explained what the problem was: that flight pay was an important component of the astronauts' salaries. The conversion to 2018 dollars lets the reader know what a significant amount it was. It would be a significant sum for most of the readers. From NASA's point of view, there was no reason to allot expensive aircraft to astronauts. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the way it is written makes it come across is that the issue that Cooper complained about is that the astronauts didn't have access to the faster and more powerful aircraft such as the F-104, and just had to train on the T-33. This should be reworded to make it clear that the problem that NASA had to fix is that they weren't able to get their requisite flying hours.
Added "NASA saw no reason to provide the astronauts with aircraft, so they had to fly meetings around the country on commercial airlines." Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to note that the F-102 is a high performance aircraft that is also capable of landing at civilian airfields. But I think there should be a better description of it's performance capabilities than "something that Cooper considered a "hot plane."" I would state "...flew F-102s, giving them dedicated access to a high-performance interceptor aircraft that could still take off from and land at short civilian airfields."
The "civilian airfields" is another allusion to Cooper. He landed his F-106 at an airfield to refuel, and when told it was too short for him to take off from, he took off with only nine minutes of fuel in the tank and made it to an military air base. Gus Grissom pioneered flying a T-38 non-stop from Houston to Los Angeles. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that anecdote in Slayton's book. A younger me would have thought that it was cool and brave, but now older me just thinks about how stupid and stubborn it was.
I took it as a testament to his flying skills. Of course the one where he deliberately flew under a flock of seagulls was kinda dumb. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's wrong to include the civilian airfield part, but the sentence itself comes across as WP:EDITORIAL
Mercury-Atlas 9
Rewrite the introduction to sound more like an encyclopedia entry vs. a story. "On (insert date), Cooper was assigned to the Mercury-Atlas 9 (MA-9) mission."
State who at NASA Headquarters was unenthusiastic about Cooper's assignment, rather than personifying the headquarters.
Y Changed to not peronalise HQ. Source doesn't provide names, and I doubt I would use them if it did.
How credible is the claim that "His laid-back attitude and Oklahoma accent didn't help." Is it attributed to many NASA officials. I ask because I feel like those are reasons that are speculated upon and presumed, not actual documented criticisms of Cooper.
Y Thompson is very reliable. He doesn't cite sources, but the source appears to be Cooper. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten the Slayton quote to what he actually said to NASA management.
Who is the astronaut hero being referenced, Slayton or Cooper? Also, it should specify what NASA did not want to do to its astronaut heroes.
It clearly says: "Slayton later recalled" Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I was unclear, but it's not clear which astronaut would be harmed by NASA. Was it Slayton because they were rejecting his support of Cooper, or Cooper because they were sending him back to the Air Force without a spaceflight.
How seriously did NASA disapprove of the name Faith because of the possible headline of "NASA loses Faith?" Was top-level management concerned about it, or was it just a comment made by am employee about the possibility of it? If it's the latter, I don't know how important it is to include that fact.
Probably Scheer. It becomes important later in dispensing with the names of spacecraft. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While anyone who has seen Top Gun should know what buzzing with an aircraft is, it should be replaced with "flew low over Hangar S." Buzzing is aviator jargon.
Was Cooper ever told of his possible replacement? The paragraph talks about his arguments and transgressions, and then goes into a discussion between Williams and Slayton. Then it seems like the first Cooper heard about it was the story that JFK intervened on his behalf.
Yes, Cooper was aware the Shepard would replace him. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did JFK intervene or was Slayton just saying that? If it is the former, the sentence should just state that JFK intervened, not that Slayton told Cooper about it.
It's what Cooper remembered. Slayton and Williams' accounts do not mention it, so Slayton may have made it up. Most editors would just add it anyway. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a presidential intervention is a pretty big detail to leave out by the other individuals in the situation. I'm inclined to think Slayton may not be the reliable source in this.
Cooper is the source: Sometime later Deke told me that President Kennedy, whom I had met more than a dozen times, had gotten wind that I might be passed over and had made it clear to NASA that he would have none of it. (pp. 38-39) Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the spacecraft velocity, as it's not like he was at a constant velocity for the entire mission, even in orbit, and there's nothing particularly notable about that speed, just that it is the required speed to achieve the orbit he was in.
My high school physics teacher would yell at me for that one! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would replace 7.6 standard gravities to 7.6 g, and link "g" to the standard gravities page.
That would be going against an established consensus. Removed this bit. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is time in space officially counted at the length of the mission from takeoff to recovery? I ask because there is time both pre-launch (very little) and during landing (much more) that is not in outer space
I think it is from liftoff to splashdown, I am having trouble finding proof of that though. It could be when they actually cross a line in the atmosphere and cross it again on the way back...I will let you know if I end up finding anything. Kees08 (Talk) 02:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "Fortunately," per WP:EDITORIALIZING. Obviously, I agree that it's fortunate that his radios continued to work, but it isn't necessary in the article.
The MA-10 information is much more pertinent to Alan Shepard. I would include it if Cooper had been the backup for the official mission, but an entire paragraph about an unapproved mission is unnecessary.
Cooper was the backup, but the mission was not flown. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "with two members of the nine" as the sentence is already long, and the most important thing is that Conrad and Cooper hadn't previously worked together, where Armstrong and See had.
Done Armstrong and See had not previously worked together. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that in the sense that they had been in the same astronaut training class together, while Cooper and Conrad had gone through training at different times.
Change "At the end of the test, which was successful" to "At the end of the successful test"
At some points you use the imperial units and have the metric units in parentheses, while you have it the opposite in this section. I think it should be standardized throughout the article.
Is this a scientific article or a non-scientific article? If the former, then the US customary units, like chains and hogs heads, come first. Otherwise, metric comes first. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that one unit should be first vs. the other (although I am a bit of a traitor to America by preferring metric), but it should be standardized throughout the article. Also, I'm not sure why a non-scientific article would use imperial units vs. metric, as almost all universally used scientific units are metric.
"While MA-9 had become uncomfortably warm, Gemini 5 became very cold." Rather than compare these two, as they are unrelated missions other than that Cooper was on both of them, state how cold Gemini 5 became.
I do not. I just think there is no reason to contrast the Gemini 5 to Faith 7, as they weren't using similar spacecraft or experiencing similar failures.
"There were also problems with the Orbital Attitude and Maneuvering System thrusters" This should say what the problems were
"A new target was designated" Is this a new target area or target time for them to retrofire?
Y Changed to "splashdown target area". But the retrofire time was changed too.
State how Cooper recognized the navigation issue and attempted to compensate. I'm not sure what the display/sensor suite showed, but I would think that he wouldn't have many visual indications that they were off course until it was much too late.
Y Added some details about how he did this. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add the verb for what the helicopters did once they plucked them from the sea
You've already mentioned that Slayton is grounded. I would change "by the Director of Flight Crew Operations, grounded Mercury 7 astronaut Deke Slayton" to "by Deke Slayton, then the Director of Flight Crew Operations."
The sentence about Shepard returning is very long. I would recommend removing extra info and breaking it up. If you mention that Shepard was grounded earlier in the article, I would leave it out entirely from this sentence. Additionally, make Shepard the subject of the entire sentence. My take is "When Shepard returned to flying status in May 1969, he replaced Cooper as the commander of Apollo 13. He was later reassigned to Apollo 14 to allow him more time to train."
State which assignment that Cooper had to do an outstanding job on to get an Apollo assignment; I'm assuming it was Apollo 10 backup commander? In what ways did he fail Slayton's expectations?
No, he doesn't go into any detail, and it is strange. Slayton is correct in that crews were in short supply at this time. Missions were being flown at a frenetic pace. Six crews were available, all detailed to missions. Under the usual scheme, Apollo 10 would have been backed up by Schirra's Apollo 7 crew, headed by Eisele, with Cunningham as CMP and newbie Mitchell as LMP. But the Apollo 7 crew were in the doghouse after that mission, so Slayton seems to have imposed Cooper on the crew. It couldn't have been done lightly though; had Stafford slipped on a bar of soap, Cooper would have been moonbound on Apollo 10. My personal conjecture is that Slayton wanted a Mercury astronaut to walk on the Moon. With Schirra and Glenn gone, Grissom dead, and Carpenter, Shepard and Slayton grounded, that left only Cooper. When Shepard returned to flight status, he claimed the next available mission. The falling out between Slayton and Cooper seems to stem from this. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a date for when he and Trudy divorced?
No, and this is not unusual, even in articles with much richer sources than this one. The problem is that you file for divorce, and it takes months or even years to become final. People tend to remember when they separated rather than when the divorce was filed or became final. Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be some specificity on when they split up, even though there may not be a hard date. Right now it's unclear if he and Trudy divorced a day or two after he retired from the Air Force, or within the next few years.
Gordo says "Trudy and I divorced soon after my retirement from NASA" (p. 202) Moved his second marriage up so the reader can se we are not talking about many years. Or even one. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Later life
Make Cooper the subject of the sentence about writing his autobiography, and move book details to later in the section, as both books were written/released after many of the events that are described in this section
Make the tense consistent in the Profile Race Team sentence
Either shorten or break up the sentence about the companies that he served as a technical consultant, as it is a run on sentence. My take is just to state that he served as a technical consultant and list the companies.
Is Galaxy Group Inc still around? A quick Google search didn't reveal anything that fits its description. If it's not around, its description should be in the past tense.
Y They're still around, but I prefer the entire article in the past tense. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Death
When did Cooper develop Parkinson's disease? Was it long before his death?
In this section, you state that Cooper and Suzan Taylor had two daughters (vs "two children, both daughters"). As you had previously pushed back on using that language because it opened the possibility that the reader would assume there are unmentioned sons, why is that included here?
Y Because I didn't write it of course. Gone with your preference for both. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
UFO sightings
I would move this section to after the NASA career section, as it happened during his earlier career
I think it is best after "later life", as it was something that he was mainly involved in then. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to include his age and rank when describing his assignment at Edwards
I would change "According to his accounts, later that morning they returned to report to Cooper" to "Acording to Cooper's accounts, they returned to him later that morning and reported" as Cooper isn't mentioned until much later in the sentence, and it's not clear that Cooper is the subject of the sentence and the person giving the account
"who on a regular basis have seen experimental aircraft flying and landing around them as part of their job of filming those aircraft" This is a bit of a run on. My take is "who regularly saw experimental aircraft flying and landing"
"were clearly worked up and unnerved" I think "worked up" and "unnerved" are synonmous in this section. As "worked up" is more of a figure of speech, I think it should read "were clearly unnerved."
I added a comma after "gears"
Combine "they took photographs and film" with the previous sentence.
Rewrite/split up the sentence about the Pentagon phone number, as it contains a lot of information, and shouldn't have a colon. Additionally, remove "special," as the number itself isn't special, just the appropriate number to call. Also, I would remove "reported up the chain of command" as it's not like Cooper was privy to the information routing on the other end of the line, and I don't think that his call to a dedicated number for UFO reports would have him be repeatedly transferred to individuals of progressively higher rank.
The first sentence in the fourth paragraph comes across as editorialized. Remove the italicized emphasis. My take is "Cooper claimed to have viewed the negatives before sending them, despite instructions not to."
Combine the second and third sentences, as its not necessary to say that the alleged excellent photos were of the expected quality. Addiditionally, I recommend replacing "photography" with "photographs," so there is a clear subject in the sentence. My take is "He said the quality of the photographs were excellent, and depicted exactly what had been described to him."
I would rewrite the phrase pf "nothing was ever said about the incident again" because as far as we know, Cooper just never heard of it. There's no telling that, if the incident in question did actually occur (my guess is no), there weren't discussions about it.
Combine the final two sentences of the fourth paragraph, and reduce some of the excess wording, such as "which was based" and "going to". My take is "He was never able to track down what happened to those photos, but assumed that they ended up at the Air Force's official UFO investigation, Project Blue Book, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base."
Remove the sentence "He further claimed these sightings had been "swept under the rug" by the U.S. government." as that says almost the same thing as the first sentence in the paragraph
I would also break it up into his military decorations, his aviator/astronaut awards, and his honorary awards.
I would if there was more of them; but as it is, each would be a one-sentence paragraph, and the MOS discourages this. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural influence
Remove "along with his widely noted and appealing personality" as that is a subjective point of view about Cooper. Also, I would use a word different than "accomplishments" because negative things about his life, such as his arguments with Trudy, were depicted as well. Additionally, I would specify that it was only about his time in Mercury, and not his lifelong accomplishments. It's unneccessary to say that Quaid is an actor. I would say that "Cooper's career as a Mercury astronaut was portrayed by Dennis Quaid in the 1983 film The Right Stuff."
Y re-worded. I want to keep his appealing personality. This is the reason why Tom Wolfe and the Right Stuff scriptwriters made Gordo such a central character in the movie, which he wasn't in the book. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change "production company on this project" to either "project's production company" or "film's production company" (my vote is the latter)
The comma after "reportedly" puts an awkward break in the sentence. I would move "reportedly" to later in the sentence "and every line uttered by Quaid is reportedly attributable to Cooper's recollection"
Interesting fact about Quaid's hair. I would shorten that sentence to "Quad had his hair cut and dyed to match the former astronaut's appearance during the 1960s and 1960s."
You shouldn't do that. See WP:REDDEAL: Do not remove these red links. But my personal policy is that I don't add them (or re-add them) unless I intend to create the article in question. Hawkeye7(discuss) 03:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "in which is chracter was played by" and just state that "Cooper was portrayed by Robert C. Treveiler in the 1998 HBO miniseries From the Earth to the Moon." It's redundant to say that he was depicted, and then later have a separate phrase stating that an actor played his character.
Is Laura Steinel retelling the story of his Mercury flight on the episode of Drunk History? That is not clear from the paragraph, as it is a separate sentence that doesn't make it clear when this depiction occured.
Y Re-worded. She wrote the episode, but since she doesn't have an article, I'm tempted to remove he reference. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dark spots that Cooper reported should be mentioned during the section about his spaceflight. It would make more sense to then introduce that a Discovery Channel show centered on finding them. Also, what were the finding of the crew looking for the ship wrecks?
I have finished my initial review, and am placing the article review on hold. I will address any comments/provide further feedback tonight and tomorrow morning. I'm going to the mainland this weekend, so I won't be able to answer any questions/provide any additional comments for a few days. Nice work on a tough article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the edits you made, I have a few issues to address, and I figure it's easier to make a separate section vs. insert them into the appropriate area in my wall of text.
Early life and education
Change "state championship" to "state football championship" to indicate what sport he was playing.
"about two months before graduating with his class in 1945" There are two classes that he was a part of in 1945, so it's not clear saying "his class." Additionally, you mention 1945 twice, which is redundant as two months prior top June 1945 is still 1945. I would replace it with "two months before his high school graduation"
It may be a misunderstanding of grammar on my part, but shouldn't "when both were 20 years old" be "when they were both 20-years-old"
"They had daughters: Camala Keoki, born in 1948, and Janita Lee, born in 1950." Rephrase this, as two daughters doesn't merit creating a list after the colon. Maybe say "Trudy gave birth to their first daughter, Camala Keoki, in 1958, and their second daughter, Janita Lee, in 1950" If you would like to keep the colon, state the total number of daughters "They had two daughters"
I think it should say "in the T-6 Texan" vs "in a T-6 Texan" as he likely flew more than one aircraft throughout his training, they were all just T-6 Texans.
I think the MajGen Cooper recollection of the space capsule construction is unnecessary, as it's not clear that Gordon Cooper connected the dots that this meant that he was going to apply to become an astronaut.
Shorten the phrase about competing with senior officers. My take it "To continue earning their flight pay, Grissom and Slayton would go out on the weekend to Langley Air Force Base, and compete for flying time with senior officers to get the required four hours a month." I do think saying "no less eager" is relevant, as the senior officers were similarly tasked throughout the work week. I think describing them as "deskbound" is just an aviator-speak insult, and doesn't mean anything other than their duties require them to be increasingly out of the airplane. They clearly are still active aircrew if they are trying to get their flight hours in.
Rephrase "too tame for Cooper's taste" to something that objectively describes what he didn't like about it. Such as "Cooper preferred the (faster/more maneuverable) F-104B to the T-33"
Similarly, rephrase "hot plane" and use a more descriptive adjective, as "hot" doesn't describe it in any measurable way, other than that Cooper liked it
"had some success with the female astronaut groupies." Use a different word than groupies, as that is a colloqualism. Additionally, make it more objective, like "had several affairs" vs. "had some success"
It's the name of the Wikipedia article on the subject. I don't have a better word. Hawkeye7(discuss) 09:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury-Atlas 9
Combine "NASA public affairs officers were not pleased. They could see the newspaper headlines if the spacecraft were lost at sea: "NASA loses Faith"." The first part of the sentence (the first sentence in your text) should state what the NASA officials weren't pleased about. It's implied because it follows a sentence about the naming, but it's not clear that is what it's about, and that question isn't answered until the next sentence. My take is "NASA public affairs officers disapproved of the name, because of the potential newspaper headlines of ""NASA loses Faith" if the spacecraft were lost at sea."
I maintain that an entire paragraph about the cancelled MA-10 is unnecessary.
Assuming the MA-10 paragraph is kept, remove the editorialized wording from it, specifically changing "and even had the name Freedom 7 II" to "and had the name Freedom 7 II" and removing "Ironically" when describing that Cooper might have flown it. It's not ironic that a backup crewmember would fly in place of a primary crewmember should they fall out.
"The mission was cut short by the appearance of Hurricane Betsy in the planned recovery area. A new splashdown target area was designated to bring Gemini 5 down before the storm hit." This is confusing, as the first sentence makes it seem like they had move the landing area to avoid the storm, and the second sentence makes it seem like they landed early before the storm entered the landing area (one sentence is spatial deconflicing, the other is time deconfliction). I'm assuming this means that the location AND time were different for landing than previously projected.
What does the "$28,000" before the Salton City boat race mean? I'm assuming its the size of the first prize winnings? As none of the other races include the prize money before their name, I would remove it.
All my sources indicate that was the correct name of the race. Hawkeye7(discuss) 09:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added "in"
I would reword the sentence about the daughters that he had with Suzan to the same format of the sentence about the daughters that he had with Trudy.
The sentence about serving on the boards of different companies is confusing. It makes it seem like he served on the companies' boards and also served on specific projects. Remove "Among the companies" and just state the boards he served on, and give a brief description of the companies. My take is "He served on the boards of Telest, which designed and installed advanced telemetry systems, Doulbloon, which built treasure hunting equiment, and Cosmos, which ran archaeological exploration projects."
Saying "went sour" is a figure of speech. State "Many of Cooper's business deals were financially unsuccessful" Additionally, I would only keep this sentence in if you have examples of these bad business deals, as the chapter shouldn't end just saying that his business deals failed and providing no examples/evidence (other than the citation), as the rest of the paragraph makes no implications that he was bad at business.
I really enjoyed reading the article that is referenced here. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
UFO sightings
I would use "worked up" or "unnerved" but not both, as they are synonymous in this case.
"There was a special Pentagon number to call to report such incidents, so he called. He was instructed to have their film developed, but to make no prints of it, and send it to the Pentagon right away in a locked courier pouch." I would combine the two sentence. If not, shorten the first sentence to say that he called a number, making Cooper the subject of the sentence. Additionally, I would remove "special" as there is nothing inherently special about the number, it is just the number to reported unknown flying objects. My take is "He called the Pentagon number to report UFO incidents, and was instructed to develop the film but no prints of it, and immediately send it to the Pentagon in a locked courier pouch."
"As Cooper had not been instructed to not look at the negatives before sending them, he did." As I mentioned in my previous comments, this doesn't make much sense, as the reader sees the first part of the sentence saying that he was instructed not to view the negatives, and then immediately moves to him viewing the negatives. Remove the italicized emphasis, and I would also make it clear that the only reports of these photographs is from Cooper. As I wrote previously, my version is "Cooper claimed to have viewed the negatives before sending them, despite instructions not to."
No, the first part of the sentence says that he had not been instructed not to look. Hawkeye7(discuss) 09:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would shorten the sentence about the quality of the photographs, as its unnecessary to state the expectations of the photographers. Similar to the previous sentence, I think it should be spelled out in the text that this is Cooper's report, not widely reported information. My take is "He said the quality of the photographs were excellent, and depicted exactly what had been described to him"
That's all for me. Looks like the article cannot be brought up to GA standard. Hawkeye7(discuss) 09:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, I think this article is up to the GA standard. There are several points that we disagree on, namely the MA-10 information and some wording, but I think you have made an organized and informative page about Cooper's life, and addressed the major points that I've brought up. Nice work; I hope that my editing wasn't too harsh! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Y It's easy to do in the Air Force, given the expensive equipment involved, and high number of accidents. Like many aircraft of the era, the F-106 had its share, including an ejector seat that killed the first 12 people who tried to use it. I haven't got the source of the source. It's interesting that you don't doubt Cooper's success as a test pilot, given what Slayton has to say below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
