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 not promoted by Karanacs 17:37, 2 March 2010 [1].

Jeannette Piccard

Jeannette Piccard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): SusanLesch ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Featured article candidates/Jeannette Piccard/archive1

Jeannette Piccard, the first woman in space and one of the first women to be ordained a priest, must be a natural for a featured article. I am nominating this because it 1) meets the featured article criteria, and 2) a new source (DeVorkin, the best yet) appeared during GA sweeps that allowed me to complete her story. Thank you. SusanLesch ( talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comments. One dab link, to Gordon Bennett Cup. External links appear fine. Some problems in the alt text: the first image should give a more detailed description of Piccard, so that readers know what she looks like. The alt texts for the diagram and map should convey the essential information that the images give to readers who can see them; see WP:ALT#Diagrams and WP:ALT#Maps. Ucucha 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Ucucha, thanks! Dab done. I added to the alt text. Does it look okay now? - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yes, thanks! Alt text looks good now. Ucucha 20:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comments -
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{ cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper

• Fixed about five of these. Did I get them all? - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• What makes http://www.ballooninghistory.com/whoswho a reliable source?

• Righto. Source replaced. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• LIkewise http://www.vectorsite.net/avbloon_3.html

• Right again. Source replaced. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Ealdgyth, thank you very much for your comments! - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• If I may ask, what'd you replace the two above with? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Surely. David DeVorkin's Race to the Stratosphere which covers almost the whole story. I deleted what I could not source. ("Jeannette later flew helium and hot air balloons, the former with her son Don in 1964.") - SusanLesch ( talk) 04:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Image check: 6 images. Most are public domain/CC-by-SA with the author listed, but there are a few problems. 1 - File:Balloon-Settle-Fordney-Akron-1933.jpg is marked as Public Domain (old), but was taken after 1923. What makes it public domain? 2 - File:Jeannette and Jean Piccard 1936.jpg is marked as fair use, but the rationale is a bit weak- it doesn't mention the articles it's being used in, and is a bit brief. 3 - File:Jeannette Piccard.jpg has a big red tag saying that the public domain template in place is deprecated and needs to be replaced with a valid one. Captions look good on all the images. -- Pres N 05:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oh boy, thank you, PresN. Jeannette Piccard and the balloon must be copyrighted. I marked them both for deletion. When I started this article about three years ago, someone thought that photos from the Smithsonian were in the public domain but the issue was never resolved—Certainly the source of those two was not good (there might be other sources). Non-free use template was added to Jeannette and Jean, with a little better rationale. I wound up replacing this one with a slightly reduced resolution copy. - SusanLesch ( talk) 06:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Are the images okay now? - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• They look to be now, yes. Thanks! -- Pres N 20:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Thank you! Surprised me and glad they are fixed. - SusanLesch ( talk) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• A question about the lead image: File:Jeannette Piccard 1934.jpg. I don't see how this can be claimed PD NASA when NASA didn't exist until 24 years after it was taken. Do we even know for sure that this is a photograph of that landing? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• SlimVirgin, I took the photo of the photo myself and saw the NASA stamp on the back with my own eyes (so she must have brought it with her to NASA). The photo wasn't labeled or titled, which says we don't know for sure what landing it is, but that's what her son told me and I have no reason to doubt him. - SusanLesch ( talk) 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Hi Susan, to claim PD for an image, we need to know something about it e.g. who took it, and particularly when it was taken, and if it's not old enough to be PD, what makes us believe it has been released. A NASA stamp just means someone placed a NASA stamp on it for some reason, perhaps because it was a copy in their archives. NASA didn't exist for another 24 years; she wasn't involved with NASA for another 30 or 40 years, or thereabouts, so NASA really has nothing to do with it. What matters is who took the photograph, because that person or their family holds the copyright, unless you can show they have explicitly released it, or they were govt employees taking it in the course of their work, for example.

  The best thing would be to download it from the Commons and claim fair use for it, though I still have a concern about saying it was the Ohio landing when we don't know that. It might be best to say on the image page that it was the Ohio landing according to a private conversation with her son in year X, and in the caption just to say it's an image of her. Sorry, I know these policies are a pain. But this is just a question of which tag to use, and whether it should be on the Commons—there's no actual problem with you using it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• You wrote on the image page that the NASA stamp said something about the copyright. Can you scan in/photograph the back of the photograph? Just wondering if it might say something about the copyright holder. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• No I can't scan the back. I had one chance to get a shot and chose the front! The stamp on the back only concerned copyright. I think you are making a big deal out of what you don't know, instead of making a big deal about what we do know. The stamp released the photo from copyright into the public domain. When that occurred doesn't matter. Obviously it was after the fact. - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The only person able to release the image is the person who took it, unless they were employed by the govt at the time. The problem is that you don't know who took it. If it was a family member, then perhaps the son owns the copyright. But it could have been a journalist, or anyone. If you know how to contact the person who owns that copy, perhaps you could ask them to scan in the back of it for us, or tell us what it says. FAs have to stick to the image policies, and they're quite clear on this point—works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted for 95 years since the date of first publication, or 120 years since their creation, unless they were published before 1923; see WP:PD. But as I said, you can still use it; it's just a question of downloading it from the Commons and claiming fair use. A claim of fair use will be fine given that she's deceased. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

(outdent) I actually agree with you that the photographer is unknown and I will replace the image with a fair use copy. I would ask for a photo of the back, except that would do us no good--a NASA stamp that says it is not copyrighted (which is all it says) would not satisfy the question of authorship. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Done. Is this all right now? - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, thanks, that looks fine. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comments.

• You call her Jeanette at times but Piccard at others, even in sections where there's no conflict with her husband's name. Piccard would be best, in my view, if it can be done without confusion, but either way it would be good not to jump around so much.

• At GA, the confusion was the other way (the article used to say Piccard everywhere).

• Piccard is better in case it sounds as though she's being patronized. But that can get difficult when there are other members of the same family. Whichever you choose it needs to be consistent.

• Switched everything back again. Two occurrences left of "Jeannette": in the "Family and education" section, "Born in Chicago, Illinois, Jeannette was one of nine children...", which then avoids having to ever call her "Ridlon", and in the "Planning and pilot's license" section, "The Piccards planned a flight to the stratosphere, Jean concentrating on the science while Jeannette piloted the balloon." Are these all right now? - SusanLesch ( talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I wouldn't say the father was "noted" without a source.

• The statement has a source ("an eminent orthopedic surgeon") in the article.

• This is where the link leads. [2]

• OK, you're right. Fixed that link to point to item 1 at LoC. Also added another source that says Dr. Ridlon was president of the American Orthopedics Assocation during the late 1890s.

• The source for "eminent" seems to the family. It's a small point and it's up to you, but I wouldn't use a word where the meaning is unclear: noted for what and by whom? I would simply say that he was Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at Northwestern University, or that he became that, depending on what he was when she was born.

• I don't think "eminent" is sourced to the family. Rather, it's sourced to the people who processed the papers. The other source says "The AOA, the prestigious organization of the leaders of orthopaedic surgery in this country, was founded in New York in 1887." Dr. Ridlon was president the year Jeannette was born. - SusanLesch ( talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I would say more about the foster children if more is available.

• More is not available.

• It looks odd the way it reads. This is a busy couple, a woman who wasn't a housewife. And yet she has time not only for three children, but for foster children too, which is quite an accomplishment. Is nothing at all known about them?

I wish there was, but no more is available until the day somebody writes a biography of Jeannette Piccard. They are mentioned by the processors of the family papers at the Library of Congress, but without going to Washington, D.C., I don't know what the letters say.

I would flesh that out for the reader, something like, "The Piccard family archive in the Library of Congress mentions correspondence from foster children that the Piccards took in, although nothing seems to be known about them," so long as you're fairly sure nothing is known.

Added. Thank you. Is this all right now? - SusanLesch ( talk) 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I would say a little bit more about the brother on first reference; as it stands it looks a bit odd. "Historian David DeVorkin wrote that Jean lived his whole life "in the shadow of his brother"[6] Auguste, who was his twin and who, with his assistant Paul Kipfer, was the first human being to reach the stratosphere."

• What would you like it to say?

• That's up to you. It's positioned oddly, moving from Jeannette and her husband, the three children, the foster children, then suddenly introducing the brother for the first time. It just needs fleshing out a bit, to make the narrative flow.

• Moved to a footnote. Is this all right now? - SusanLesch ( talk) 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I would delink ordinary terms and names, per WP:OVERLINK.

• Unlinked "bachelor's degree". Anything else?

• OVERLINK says "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement,[3] and dates ..."

• Done. Are these all right now? - SusanLesch ( talk) 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• The quote "race for supremacy in the stratosphere" needs in-text attribution.

• Added.

• I think you need to say more about why Jean was difficult to deal with, if you mention it at all.

• I handled Jean's problems as I saw fit. First introduced DeVorkin's overview, then mentioned he was difficult, and finally that they were both fired. You would like to see this in some other way. Unfortunately I can't be you. I put the first one (DeVorkin's) in a footnote. Does that work?

• The section called Balloon is a little confusing; not clear how Jeanette fits in, especially, "The balloon then belonged to Jean and Jeannette[20] but the armed forces again decided to use it." Not clear what that means, or what the connection is to the next sentence.

• Agree. I will attend to this with review this weekend.

• Do you have a source for "The National Geographic Society refused to back a flight piloted by a mother, and longtime Piccard family backer Goodyear were also reluctant to support a female pilot"?

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yes. Source added (I don't know what happened to that, thank you).

• The source is actually Jeanette herself, which the article should make clear. The source you added says: "As Jeannette characterized it, 'The National Geographic Society would have nothing to do with sending a woman—a mother—in a balloon into danger.'"

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yes, you are right, the source there is Jeannette.

Hi Susan, I think you need to go through the article again and read it from the perspective of someone who hasn't read it before, and who knows nothing about Piccard. The aim is to tell the story as smoothly as possible, so there's nothing that will surprise the reader, or make them wonder what's being said. There are quite a few parts in it where it's not really clear. Just to take one example:

Jeannette and Jean became consultants to General Mills during the mid-1940s.[48] They were annoying to the complex Navy project Helios,[49] and at one point Jeannette threatened to break off ties with the Navy and General Mills unless she was allowed to fly with Jean.[50] They were both too critical of General Mills' Otto Winzen,[51] and they were fired in 1947.

There's no indication what General Mills is. I know it's linked, but it would help to say what it was, and what kind of consultants they were. How were they annoying to the Navy project Helios, and what is the connection between General Mills and Helios i.e. what is the connection between these sentences? Why would they have to break ties to be allowed to fly together? In what way were they critical of Otto Winzen, and who is Otto Winzen? Why were they fired?

There are quite a few places like that in the article, where just the bare minimum of information is given with little to link the different points. Some fleshing out for flow would help a lot. Feel free to ping me if you want me to take another look. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I can go through the whole thing this weekend. Thank you for your comments. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I rewrote this paragraph and changed a few other places. Does it read okay now? - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

That paragraph is a little bit better, but still not really clear:

The Piccards became consultants to General Mills (the cereal company) who developed cluster balloons with the Navy on a government contract during the mid-1940s.[47] Jean was named a project scientist, but he functioned by title only and annoyed his colleagues who had to work around him. Piccard, who became annoying herself, threatened to break off ties with the Navy and General Mills unless she was allowed to fly with Jean.[48] They were both were fired in 1947, for they were too critical of General Mills staff.

Why was a cereal company developing cluster balloons; in what way did he annoy his colleagues—just by not pulling his weight? How did Piccard becoming annoying? Is "annoying" the best word; in what way were they critical of the staff; and who is saying all this? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Break 1

Hi, thanks for putting all this extra work into it, Susan. The problem I'm having with the article is mainly twofold. First, you're not mining your sources for colour about her. Not that much detail is known—the kind of detail that paints a three-dimensional picture—so to bring her alive you really need to suck everything out of the sources. I've written out one example to show you what I mean. This covers the issue of the foster children and that she attended Jean's lectures. Using two sources for those two points, New Mexico space museum and Gilruth, you wrote (this was when I first looked the article):

The Piccards had three sons, John, Paul, and Donald, as well as foster children. Historian David DeVorkin wrote that Jean lived his whole life "in the shadow of his brother" ^[1] Auguste, who was his twin and who, with his assistant Paul Kipfer, was the first human being to reach the stratosphere. ^[2]

The Piccards taught at the University of Lausanne from 1919–26. In 1926 they returned to the United States, where Jean taught organic chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ^[3] The couple lived in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania before settling in Minneapolis in 1936 when Jean joined the faculty of the University of Minnesota; Jeannette attended many of his lectures there. ^[4]

Using the same two sources, I'd have written something like this (I'm leaving out the issue of his being in the shadow of the brother, which I think I'd have placed elsewhere):

The Piccards had three sons of their own, John, Paul, and Donald, and appear to have opened their home to foster children too—the Piccard family archive in the Library of Congress mentions correspondence from foster children, but nothing seems to be known about them. ^[5] Robert Gilruth of NASA recalled having breakfast with Jean and Jeannette in a hotel when they went to St. Cloud for a balloon launch, and said they had lots of boys sitting around the table with them, the youngest dumping a cornflake box on his father's head at one point. Gilruth remembered Jean as a very gentle man—the epitome of a scientist who paid no attention to his hair or his clothes, but who focused only on his work—and that it was Jeannette who was in charge. She was at least half the brains of the family, he said, technically and otherwise. ^[4]

Jean and Jeannette both taught at the University of Lausanne from 1919–26, returning in 1926 to the U.S. where Jean taught organic chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ^[6] They lived in a number of places—Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania—before settling in Minneapolis in 1936 when Jean took a teaching job at the University of Minnesota. Jeannette didn't work there herself, but Gilruth said she was almost always in the room when Jean was lecturing. "She was something," he said. "She was good." ^[4]

I'm not suggesting you have to write it that way, of course. You have to use your own style. But I think you do have to take as much as you can from the source material, given how little of it there is.

More added. Sorry to follow your example so closely! Is this better? - SusanLesch ( talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's exactly the right way to do it. You didn't really follow my example that closely. It's clearly your own. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The second problem is related. It's not clear the sources are being used completely accurately. One example: When I first saw the article, it said of National Geographic's failure to sponsor the flight, "The National Geographic Society refused to back a flight piloted by a mother ..." with no source. I requested a source and you added a footnote to this webpage, but it didn't say that; it said Piccard herself claimed it. I pointed that out to you, and you added "Piccard remembered that the National Geographic Society refused to back a flight piloted by a mother ..." [3]—but you don't know whether she remembered it, or misremembered it, or exaggerated it, or made it up. And yet the thrust of that whole section, "Overcoming prejudice" (typo in the header, by the way), seems to rest on Piccard herself.

If you look at the Gilruth interview you use as a source, he addresses this issue. There's no mention of her being discriminated against because she was a woman. Rather both she and her husband felt discriminated against, but didn't know or wouldn't say why.

GILRUTH: Yes, I remember that [Jean] Piccard was very, very hurt by the National Geographic that would not give them a dime, and they gave so much to these other people. [snip] ... Both he and Jeanette said that they were discriminated against by the National Geographic. That's not a good word. They were not aided in any way by the National Geographic, and they felt it was not really warranted. They felt they should have gotten some help from them.

DEVORKIN: They never said why.

GILRUTH: No, he didn't say why, but they certainly didn't feel they'd been handled fairly. [4]

You're right about this! DeVorkin didn't mention discrimination either. I renamed the section and added a quote from Jeannette, and then Gilruth. Is that better? - SusanLesch ( talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, it's very good now. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I feel you need to go through the sources again, and do two things: make sure that everything relevant is in the article, with in-text attribution where it makes sense (and I think that's going to mean rewriting bits of it); and at the same time make sure it's all presented very accurately. I'm sorry not to be more positive about it at this point. It has the potential to be a gem of an article. I just don't feel that it's there yet. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

SlimVirgin, your comments are wonderful. Unfortunately I am not a good writer. I don't think that I will be able to correct this to your liking. - SusanLesch ( talk) 03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't agree, Susan, I think you will. You just need to step back from it a little. I think what you are doing is trying to force too much of a structure on your sources, summarizing them too much. Read the sources again, and try to step back mentally when you write: let what they say flow through your fingertips, if I can put it that way. Let the reader see what you are seeing. Who is saying it, when are they saying it, what did they say, was it in an interview etc. It just needs fleshing out so it's clearer to the reader how much you know. Don't give up! :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, you've got it going now. Last night I was about ready to give up, and now it doesn't seem so impossible to do. One thing though, there needs to be a way to explain Jean's position. The DeVorkin quote about being under his brother's shadow said a lot to me. But now it's in a footnote. Possibly a part of the newly named "funding" section would work, to say he needed a job in science? - SusanLesch ( talk) 01:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, I think that's important too, though the article shouldn't make more of it than the sources do. If a source says he needed a job in science because he felt under the shadow, then good, but otherwise we should just have it as part of a character analysis. Also in that section, the source doesn't say that the other companies didn't want to support because she was a woman, so that needs to be removed. I would include Gilruth as the source for this too: that several companies didn't want to support, and Jean and Jeannette felt discriminated against, though Jean never said why. Jeannette later said it was because she was a mother, in her view etc. Something like that. Again, be guided entirely by what the sources say, and name them where appropriate. Don't hold back on telling the reader what you know, and how you know it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Correction made. You're right again about this source. Gilruth, however, said nothing about any other organization than National Geographic. There are several questions for you above. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

But you can use Gilruth as a source combined with the others to produce a more general statement about the lack of sponsorship. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I see you've done it already. It's much better. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Her name again—sorry, I think it might be better to call her Jeannette throughout. I know you've gone back and forth on this one, but I've just noticed this, for example: "Piccard was the mother of a house full of boys. Robert R. Gilruth, one of Jean's students and collaborators, said later in his oral history, that he remembered a breakfast he had with the Piccards in a St. Cloud, Minnesota hotel before a balloon launching, "I don't know how many there were. It seems like there was a dozen.... I remember the youngest one took the corn flake box and dumped it on his father's head. Of course, Piccard just brushed it off his head and said, 'No, no.'" It might be clearer if you just plumped for Jeannette. It's up to you, though, whichever you feel easier with. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Changed back to Jeannette. Because this was a suggestion from the very first GA review, I think we ought to stop changing it back and forth now. The priest section maybe isn't as good this way, but it is less than half the article. So, done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I've rewritten the lead a little, and expanded the infobox; see here. Feel free to revert anything you don't like; that goes for any edit I make to the page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

That's fine but you had better add it to the article. The lead should summarize the article. Also someone (not you) has added four dubious sources about the Concorde and, as long as I'm complaining, I'm having trouble removing them (they are formatted differently than the article's sources). - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Things in the lead don't have to be in the article too. The lead should sum up the subjects that are covered in the article, and it does that. Anyway, it's up to you entirely—if you want to remove anything, please feel free. I'm wondering if maybe this FAC should be withdrawn so you're not under so much pressure. You could then check all the sources and expand or polish at your leisure and resubmit in a few weeks. Again, just a suggestion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

SlimVirgin, are you saying that you cannot forsee supporting this now? I thought that the article was so much improved that you would. For heavens sake, thank you for your help! - SusanLesch ( talk) 05:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Break 2

Susan, you've improved it a lot, but there's still a fair bit of work ahead. The problem is that you fix whatever I mention, but you have to go on to fix the rest of it in the same spirit. :-) The article has to be comprehensive about her life (the technical stuff about other flights matters less, in my view), and there can't be anything confusing in the text. I'm concerned that things are still appearing in sources that weren't in the original text e.g. that she was the first of the first 11 to be ordained—it's a small detail but it's the kind of thing a good bio hangs on, because that must have been a very emotional moment for her, especially for a woman who wanted to be the first this, the first that—and there may be other material like that out there.

The notes and refs are a bit untidy looking, with some sentences having multiples refs or notes after or inside them e.g. "That same year she met and married Jean Felix Piccard,[nb 1] who was teaching at the university.[nb 2]" The untidiness apart, both of the things in notes would benefit from being in the text. And why would this sentence—"On November 20, 1933, with only a few hundred onlookers this time, Settle and Maj. Chester L. Fordney of the U.S. Marine Corps flew the Century of Progress balloon from Akron, Ohio, reaching 61,237 feet (18,665 m), a new Fédération Aéronautique Internationale altitude record.[21][28][29][nb 3]"—need three refs and an additional note after it? Ideally, you shouldn't have refs inside sentences or multiple refs after sentences unless they're really needed. There are no hard and fast rules, but when you're adding multiple refs and notes like that, always be asking yourself how necessary they are, because they do force the reader's eye toward them and away from the text. I see you had a few multiple refs before you brought the article to FAC, [5] but they've increased as you're trying to add and pin down material.

Some of the writing is still unclear e.g. "Jeannette reportedly made "unplanned and impulsive manoeuvres" resulting in an incomplete record of their actions during the flight"—why would that result in an incomplete record? "Auguste turned the project over to his twin brother Jean ..." but in what sense? He didn't fly, but was he otherwise involved? "The balloon then belonged to the Piccards[27] but the armed forces again decided to use it." Belonged to them in what sense? Did they not want the armed forces to use it? "Henry Ford offered the use of his hangar and brought Orville Wright to observe a flight in 1933." Observe what flight (one of hers?), and would it be better to explain who Orville Wright is? You don't include a lot of Time's details [6] e.g. that Henry Ford was there for the 1934 flight, or that Time regarded it as basically a stunt.

Also, is everything carefully sourced? E.g. "Auguste turned the project over to his twin brother Jean,[18] who, with Jeannette, was to be given the balloon and gondola ..." Does the source say "with Jeanette"?

I'm happy to support if you can sort out the issues, and I take my hat off to you for sticking with it, but I'm thinking you might feel under less pressure without an open nomination. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Susan, I thought it might help if you were to read some other bios of non-living women to see how they deal with chronology versus other ways of structuring, and how they lay out refs. Some FAs about women as examples: Alice Ayres, Emmeline Pankhurst, Mary Toft, Ima Hogg, and Harriet Bosse. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the examples. I've read Pankhurst's before but not the others.
• Most of the refs are combined, so they don't interrupt the reader. There are a couple remaining, like "a claim allowed even by Valentina Tereshkova."[39][nb 4]" which could be eliminated with more tricks. But combined refs are getting pretty complicated—other people may want to edit in the future. What do you think? Do they look all right now?
• The Time story is interesting for calling it a stunt. The article does mention DeVorkin's point that "manned balloon flight" was basically wrong-headed, but only once. I could expand on this sentence (it's at the end of "Legacy") if you like.
• Yes, the source says "with Jeannette".
• I added to the "Balloon" section.
• "The problem is that you fix whatever I mention, but you have to go on to fix the rest of it in the same spirit. :-)" Yes, but actually I did quite a lot of this and in the same spirit. Yesterday you added quotes to the lead, that weren't in the article the day before. Two more new quotes added to the "Planning and pilot's license" section today.
• Speaking of which, Time is the only source for her being the " first licensed woman balloon pilot". I panicked for a second, failing to find my source in Google. But Time should be okay.

Made quite a bit of progress today. Do you have other issues? Thank you for hanging in there! - SusanLesch ( talk) 06:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This is getting much better, including the refs. Bear in mind that not everything that's in the lead needs to be repeated in the article, quotations particularly. The point of saying the lead needs to reflect the article is just to make sure you don't add something like, "And in 1945 she sailed off the top of the highest building in New York," but then fail to elaborate in the text. :) It doesn't cover every detail or quote, or things added for colour. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the encouragement. (Yes, you're right. I used to conflate WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY into a made-up rule for the lead being a summary. This was mistaken although it might have helped stop front-loading in some articles especially about politicians.) I have the whole day today free after lunch. Do you you think we are there or do you have any more issues I can work on? - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

It's just a question of making sure everything that's known about her is in the article, or that you've decided not to include it—but there shouldn't be anything significant that you don't know about. And then polishing, polishing, polishing to create a smooth read, to make sure there are no jagged edges in the sentences, or in the way the story flows. Make sure that each sentence flows into the next, that they all make sense as stand-alone sentences, and that each paragraph flows into the next. The reader shouldn't be left feeling puzzled or surprised. Ask yourself whether you've explained everything clearly. What happened to Jean being difficult to worth with, by the way? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Jean's problems are in the scans I sent you. From my talk page, I thought you were going to write that section? Also, I thought that the goal of what I am doing is for you to support this article. It is surely a better article since you commented, and if there are no other issues, then it would be great to see a supporting vote. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) That was the General Mills paragraph I was going to look at; sorry I haven't done it, but I wasn't expecting to have to read 18 pages to find it. :) The thing I was talking about above is that you referred to him being difficult in an earlier version of the balloon section, but it's gone now. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I added some generalities in the "Balloon" section. - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You added, "Historian David DeVorkin wrote that Jean lived his whole life in the shadow of his brother, which made him difficult for the fair organizers to deal with." ^[7] But it again begs the question of what kind of difficulty, and what the link is between that and his brother. And later when you say he caused misunderstandings and annoyances—what kind and how? The picture you're painting isn't coming alive for the reader. For example, look at the first and second sections. There's no narrative link between them explaining how Jeannette became a balloonist and why. Why did the organizers of the 1933 decide to give Jean and Jeannette the balloon: what was she doing that made her part of the picture? If we don't know, that's fine, but I'm wondering if there are sources out there that explain. And later on, what did she do to become an inventor of the plastic balloon?

I wonder whether your taking a break from reading or editing the article would help. I know I've been in situations with articles where I've read them so often that I stop being able to see the problems. A short break can make all the difference. I'm really sorry I can't support it at the moment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Just an update. I undid the above additions. Two quick things.

• There is no source that I know of for why Jeannette became a balloonist, but it must have been her association with her husband. (This becomes original research which we don't do here.) Instead of making that up, there is now a quote from DeVorkin at the end of the "Family and education" section. It works as a transition.
• There is no source for why Jeannette invented the plastic balloon. Unfortunately I will need to drop this paragraph because I myself have not seen the book to which it refers. I asked Don Piccard who told me this, specific questions about the invention. But Toledo, DeVorkin would have mentioned it if it were literally true. One has to be very careful on Wikipedia not to assign "firsts" and "inventions" because of the broad base of input. Safest I think to completely drop it.

I expect to continue work on the "Later life..." section today, which will relieve SlimVirgin from having to read 30 pages of scans of detailed source. Thanks very much for the offer. _ SusanLesch ( talk) 18:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Now we have a whole new article and to celebrate I named a section "Auguste and Jean" followed by "Balloon and Thomas Settle flights". I don't think that we need to go into any more detail about the General Mills consultancies, and I added only the name of Otto Winzen who made the proposal behind them. I will keep working on the English and punctuation while waiting for some feedback. - SusanLesch ( talk) 23:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This is getting much better. The writing is more professional, and the story's starting to flow. Still a few spots that aren't entirely clear. For example, "Unfortunately, Jean became a major annoyance when he tried independently to find funding from DuPont, and when he sought to go over the flight organizers' heads by contacting the president of the fair (who was a friend of Jeannette's father)." What does the source say exactly? You cite DeVorkin, pp. 59, 74, 76. Specifically I'm wondering why they would have objected to his finding funding himself, and what he tried to go over their heads about.

• I'm able to explain the first fairly well, but not quite the second (but added a bit to it anyway). Does it make sense now? - SusanLesch ( talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The first isn't really explained well. "Unfortunately, Jean became an annoyance. When he tried independently to find funding from DuPont, he told them the flight from Soldier Field in Chicago could be dangerous, and was turned down." What is the flight from Soldier Field; is it the balloon flight? And how could it not be dangerous? What does the source actually say about these issues (and the contacting of the president)? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Further down, who were the two Nobel Prize winners? Also, you mention the Piccard-Compton flight before you've mentioned Compton. And "During the negotiations, the organizers agreed to give Jean and Jeannette the balloon and gondola after its initial flight, in exchange for Jean remaining on the ground." Why would they have to do that? If the Piccards were annoying them, were not flying, and were not allowed to find independent funding, what did the organizers want from them that caused them to promise the Piccards the balloon? And, "Eventually, Jean was demoted from science observer to not flying at all." Is a science observer necessarily someone who flies?

• Nobel prize winners omitted for now. (They were Compton and Millikan.) In their place, the article might answer your next question now (the name Piccard was that famous). Does it answer?
• If not I'll go back the other way (but it seems like wasted energy). Do you think Compton followed by Compton is still a problem? If so, that requires surgery.
• Added "inflight" before "science observer". Sorry for the mixup. - SusanLesch ( talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You suddenly introduce this quote at the launch—"The sportsmanship and unselfishness displayed by Dr. Jean Piccard in surrendering his place in the balloon so that a greater altitude may be achieved through the lessened weight of himself and his equipment—is a note of sacrifice that will not be forgotten"—without having mentioned before that he was giving up a place to make the balloon lighter. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• I don't think Jean ever gave up. But you're right, this was abrupt. Added a bit about an MoU that Jean signed (but I risk putting something else out of order). How does it look? - SusanLesch ( talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

But you don't mention the issue of the balloon needing to be lighter. You say they didn't want him to fly, but not why. And you give the impression he was fighting to stay in the balloon, not that he made a grand sacrifice. So was the quote at the launch just politics? These things all need to be explained. You're introducing material out of the blue, that's the problem. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Excuse me, but 'Jean signed a memorandum of understanding with the organizers that said he would remain on the ground, "permitting Commander Settle to go alone. The reduction in weight thereby produced will most assuredly enable Commander Settle to reach a higher altitude".' seems to be a direct answer to your question. What am I missing? Or are you missing? - SusanLesch ( talk) 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You talk all the way through about he wanted to fly, thought he was flying, had to be promised the balloon so that he'd agree not to fly. Then you suddenly tell us that, at the launch, he was thanked for an act of self-sacrifice, the point of which was to make the balloon lighter. But the launch (or now the memorandum) is the first time you've mentioned the weight issue. Also, this sentence needs to be fixed: "After battling with an associate of the fair's director of concessions who wanted Jean out of the picture and then wanted Auguste to return to the U.S. to fly, the Piccard name (which bore considerable publicity value) was kept prominently ..." This says that the Piccard name was battling. I assume it was Jean who was battling. But that again raises the question about the sacrifice issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. I've been hoping this could be sorted out, and it is indeed improving, but progress is slow and I don't see it being fixed for quite some time at this rate. The issues are 1(a) prose problems—the writing is unclear in places, sentences are disjointed, names and events are introduced without prior explanation, and the connections between people and events are often confused. 1(b) I'm not confident that the article reflects everything that's out there, or that the sources that have been used have been consulted thoroughly. 1(c) I have concerns that the material isn't staying true to the source material.

  I was also concerned yesterday to see that, after 14 days at FAC, there was still original research in the article (about Jeannette being the inventor of the plastic balloon, something the nominator was told privately) [7] and it only came to light because I asked about it. That makes me wonder what else is not properly sourced. I'm sorry, Susan. I'd advise you to try to work on it some more, then take it to peer review. I'd be happy to help review it there if you wanted me to. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.