Old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive1
This article has changed very significantly since the last peer review. It was delisted as a GA, had a major overhaul, and was then promoted again. It has been assessed as an A-class article. I am hoping to get the article to Featured Article status if possible. Any comments would be most welcome. MLilburne 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The technical detail in this article is fabulous, but the popular impact is grossly understated. The news coverage and public reaction around the world was enormously exaggerated relative to the number of lives lost and the amounts of money involved. Public awareness of the Challenger disaster ranks at least as high as the Chernobyl meltdown and much higher than the Bhopal disaster, which caused far more fatalitites and costs. Challenger has become a reference point in debates about engineering safety, and is discussed in detail in many university engineering programmes and safety training in large companies. It has spawned dozens of books, documentaries, and training videos. This impact on the popular consciousness merits discussion.-- Yannick 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just started reading this, but will do more later. A few little things that the automated review probably already caught (I fixed a few in one section but now have to go):
-- Will.i.am 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I gave this article a more thorough read today. Here's some quick comments, but feel free to ignore them if they're too annoying. I also added a few examples of tiny grammar changes that may help you in copy-editing:
That was all I found for now, this is a really nice article! Good luck with it!-- Will.i.am 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Old peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Shuttle Challenger disaster/archive1
This article has changed very significantly since the last peer review. It was delisted as a GA, had a major overhaul, and was then promoted again. It has been assessed as an A-class article. I am hoping to get the article to Featured Article status if possible. Any comments would be most welcome. MLilburne 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The technical detail in this article is fabulous, but the popular impact is grossly understated. The news coverage and public reaction around the world was enormously exaggerated relative to the number of lives lost and the amounts of money involved. Public awareness of the Challenger disaster ranks at least as high as the Chernobyl meltdown and much higher than the Bhopal disaster, which caused far more fatalitites and costs. Challenger has become a reference point in debates about engineering safety, and is discussed in detail in many university engineering programmes and safety training in large companies. It has spawned dozens of books, documentaries, and training videos. This impact on the popular consciousness merits discussion.-- Yannick 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just started reading this, but will do more later. A few little things that the automated review probably already caught (I fixed a few in one section but now have to go):
-- Will.i.am 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I gave this article a more thorough read today. Here's some quick comments, but feel free to ignore them if they're too annoying. I also added a few examples of tiny grammar changes that may help you in copy-editing:
That was all I found for now, this is a really nice article! Good luck with it!-- Will.i.am 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)