![]() | STS-8 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 27, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Space Shuttle mission
STS-8 flew
Guy Bluford (pictured), the first
African-American
astronaut? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Can anyone explain the cat? Ravenmasterq 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says this flight had the first African American in space. I'm assuming that no black person from any other country flew before him. Shouldn't it really say he was the first "black" person in space to stress that no European or Russian flight had had a black crew member before. Or maybe I assumed wrong and there was a black non-american in space before the guy in the article? I understand that there is a wish to avoid the word black to describe a race in some countries, but what do you call a person who isn't American but is black? A non-american african american? I can't think of a better decription than black, sorry. -OOPSIE- 06:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It is misleading, as Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez was the first black person in space, having flown on a 1980 Soviet mission. But since "African-American" limits itself to Americans, while misleading, it is accurate. Canada Jack ( talk) 16:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
An interesting detail - Shayler, p. 166, notes that "Interestingly enough, the Soviets had publicly criticised the near-fatal accident of STS-8 when its SRB almost burnt through just weeks before." when talking about the Soyuz T-10-1 abort. The Soyuz abort was on September 26, the day before the SRB burnthrough was discovered - I wonder how this worked out? Presumably they made the criticism before announcing their own problem, but I'd be intrigued to know the exact dates, and whether this was likely a way of deflecting attention... Shimgray | talk | 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This article deserves GA status. It is well written, neutral, stable and well referenced with in-line citations, despite the uninteresting nature and history of the STS-8 mission. A number of minor problems had been fixed during the review, as documented below. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Overall impression is good. Comments
Materialscientist ( talk) 07:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
|
I would like to remove the "wake-up calls" section from this article (and by extension every other, but baby steps...). I've tried this twice but been reverted because we need more discussion; the problem is, there doesn't seem to be any central discussion anywhere on these ;-)
To summarise my objections to the practice, generally speaking:
It's been suggested we should retain it because it's consistent, since many other NASA spaceflight articles have these templates. But consistency could just as easily be an argument for removing them all; we should never feel compelled to keep material just because someone added it, and I really don't see how having these sections improves our articles.
Does anyone have strong feelings either way? Comments appreciated, and apologies if I sound frustrated... Shimgray | talk | 09:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | STS-8 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 27, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Space Shuttle mission
STS-8 flew
Guy Bluford (pictured), the first
African-American
astronaut? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Can anyone explain the cat? Ravenmasterq 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says this flight had the first African American in space. I'm assuming that no black person from any other country flew before him. Shouldn't it really say he was the first "black" person in space to stress that no European or Russian flight had had a black crew member before. Or maybe I assumed wrong and there was a black non-american in space before the guy in the article? I understand that there is a wish to avoid the word black to describe a race in some countries, but what do you call a person who isn't American but is black? A non-american african american? I can't think of a better decription than black, sorry. -OOPSIE- 06:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It is misleading, as Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez was the first black person in space, having flown on a 1980 Soviet mission. But since "African-American" limits itself to Americans, while misleading, it is accurate. Canada Jack ( talk) 16:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
An interesting detail - Shayler, p. 166, notes that "Interestingly enough, the Soviets had publicly criticised the near-fatal accident of STS-8 when its SRB almost burnt through just weeks before." when talking about the Soyuz T-10-1 abort. The Soyuz abort was on September 26, the day before the SRB burnthrough was discovered - I wonder how this worked out? Presumably they made the criticism before announcing their own problem, but I'd be intrigued to know the exact dates, and whether this was likely a way of deflecting attention... Shimgray | talk | 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This article deserves GA status. It is well written, neutral, stable and well referenced with in-line citations, despite the uninteresting nature and history of the STS-8 mission. A number of minor problems had been fixed during the review, as documented below. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Overall impression is good. Comments
Materialscientist ( talk) 07:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
|
I would like to remove the "wake-up calls" section from this article (and by extension every other, but baby steps...). I've tried this twice but been reverted because we need more discussion; the problem is, there doesn't seem to be any central discussion anywhere on these ;-)
To summarise my objections to the practice, generally speaking:
It's been suggested we should retain it because it's consistent, since many other NASA spaceflight articles have these templates. But consistency could just as easily be an argument for removing them all; we should never feel compelled to keep material just because someone added it, and I really don't see how having these sections improves our articles.
Does anyone have strong feelings either way? Comments appreciated, and apologies if I sound frustrated... Shimgray | talk | 09:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)