Talk:John Young (astronaut)

Speed record

I chose to remove the speed record section from the Apollo 10 section. My decision is based upon the fact that Young didn't do anything himself to accomplish this; it was just the trajectory the spacecraft was on. It was brought back in, and I'm hoping to get some community decision on it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Young (astronaut)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

After doing a quick scan, I think this article seems to be in pretty excellent shape for a GA candidate. I'll take some time to look it over in more detail for the full review. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 00:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this review, Forbes72! To the best of my knowledge, we have never worked together (sorry if that means I'm forgetting something); always good to have a fresh set of eyes review ones work. I'm planning on putting this article up at WP:FAC once it has reached GA status (assuming there are no issues along the way), so I'm happy for any and all feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   -> He completed midshipman cruises aboard the USS Missouri, where he roomed with future Apollo 10 crew mate Thomas Stafford,[1]:19 and the USS Newport News Can you rephrase? I understand what is meant, but the first time I read this it sounded like he roomed with a naval cruiser.
   -> Cartersville, Georgia should be a single wikilink to the city, like Orlando, Florida.
   -> Young applied to become a naval aviator, but was selected to become a gunnery officer Wikilink naval aviator, gunnery officer.
   -> was assigned to Fighter Squadron 103 (VF-103) Wikilink the whole name instead of just the abbreviation.
   -> F9F Cougar add wikilink.
   -> Young's group selected the David Clark G3C pressure suit wikilink Gemini space suit
   -> There's a general preponderance of WP:JARGON, especially initialisms. EVAs, CSM, LM, SPS, ALSEP, ISS, JSC, TPS, and so on. I'm not talking about those like NASA or STS-9 that are the WP:COMMONNAME, but if you only mention the topic once or twice (SPS, ISS), I think it's better for the layman's sake to just stick to the full name when possible.

   Think I took care of everything listed above. The only exception is that I left EVA in. I think it's a pretty accepted term, as that is how NASA describes it, and it sounds better than "spacewalk" or "moonwalk." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

   Sounds fine. My purpose was not to insist on all of them being removed, just to cut down on how many of them since it seemed to make it harder to read. Looks like that's been done. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 05:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Stylistically well edited.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   looks good.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   -> Consensus is that find a grave is not a reliable source. You can probably source his resting place somewhere else. Ditto for the four references to IMDb movie casting.

   Surprisingly couldn't find a reliable source that listed where Young was buried. Next time I'm in DC I'll have to visit Arlington and get a photo of his gravesite. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

   -> John Posey's resumé is self published, should find a different reference.

   Couldn't find any non-IMDB reference (or Posey bio) for Young casting. I decided to remove the "In Media" section, as it's not like he had a major role in any of these movies (which is a shame). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

   -> I've got some concern with the level of closely connected sourcing here. By far the most citations are to his autobiography, and about 25% of the separately listed references are published by his direct employers at NASA. As a citation for facts about his life, that seems fine, but things like NASA naming him "Ambassador for exploration" should have a third party source if you're going to include it.

   I think I took care of what you're looking for. I removed the Ambassador for Exploration as that is a fairly meaningless title (in the scheme of everything else he did). Recording his official awards (both military and NASA) I think it's fine to leave the NASA citations as they are being issued by the US government and not some minor organization. I think his group membership isn't too controversial/promotional, so I also want to just leave the NASA bio citation in. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

   Sounds fair. If the awards are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page, mentioning them is probably a good idea. My main concern for this typo of bio would be hewing too close to his and his employer's perspectives over a broader opinion, but in this case I think there's pretty broad agreement his career is pretty exceptional. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 05:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   seems to follow the citations.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   seems to be in order.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   A nice summary of his life and work, with no major holes to speak of.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Seems to be on topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The most relevant point here seems to be the controversy about challenger disaster, which seems done pretty well.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   some minor rephrasing recently, but no major overhauls or disputes.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Most seem to be NASA images, but they all are tagged well.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Some really excellent pictures. Well laid out.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Hold Most of the article looks pretty good, but I think there's two main issues: the article leans a little heavy on WP:JARGON, and there are a few sourcing issues that need to be addressed. There's a lot of good content here though, so I hope rejigging the references isn't a serious problem to overcome. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 05:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, almost forgot to courtesy ping @Balon Greyjoy: 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 05:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Forbes72: Think I took care of everything; I left some comments above! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it took a little while to get back to this. Looks great. I'm going to pass. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 05:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Bolden quote

@Ylee: I see that you have re-added the Charles Bolden quote that I removed last year in the run up to nominating this article for GA/FA. As we disagree on whether this quote belongs or not, I would like to go over why I removed it.

• It's in the "Navy service" section, and Bolden would not have flown with Young prior to Young's Navy retirement, as Bolden joined NASA in 1980.

• It doesn't change or add to the narrative that Young was an accomplished pilot. His experience as a record-setting Navy test pilot and service as a commander or pilot for groundbreaking missions establishes that he was an accomplished aviator. Hoot Gibson was the commander for Bolden's first flight and Young was the original commander for Bolden's second flight. His praise for two of his three commanders (I'm sure Loren Shriver is good, too) is subjective and doesn't explain any of their specific accomplishments. While it would be relevant if Bolden was praising an aviator who is otherwise not accomplished or experienced, that is not the case with John Young. To maintain WP:NPOV, I think it is best not to include quoted praise from one individual and let Young's accomplishments speak for themselves.

Please let me know what you think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I see your point about the Navy service section not being the best place for the quote; the NASA career section would be better.

As for the quote itself, it is a relevant, specific quote by a reliable source. Stating that Bolden is being unduly nice to two of his commanders is flat-out OR especialy when, as you acknowledge, Bolden never actually flew on the Shuttle with Young.

If a veteran shuttle astronaut chooses to in an oral history specifically praise, by name, two of the many astronauts and pilots he has worked with over 40 years as being especially skilled, who are we to disregard that? What about the fact that said veteran astronaut a) reached flag rank and b) later became NASA Administrator? How many more bona fides does he need to demonstrate his worthiness of being a RS? Ylee (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: asked me to give my input. As you've noted, the Navy section doesn't make sense for the quote. The quote is specifically in regard to them acting as mentors for Bolden after he joined the corps in 1980. So definitely elsewhere, if at all. Where would you put it? --Neopeius (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The question is about veteran astronauts mentoring Bolden on his rookie flight, but Bolden specifically and immediately cites flying ability in his answer, of which the quote is only a small part. The fact that Bolden mentions Young by name despite their never actually flying on the shuttle together further indicates that Bolden is referring to Young and Gibson's flying skills specifically, although Bolden explains how flying ability was important in Gibson being a mentor to the rookie astronaut.

As for where to put it, after further thought, I think keeping it in the Navy section actually works, because Bolden is specifically referring to Young's piloting skills. Another possibility is at the end of the NASA management section, by inserting a paragraph break before "After working at NASA for over 42 years". The Bolden quote fits well with the recitation of statitics on Young's NASA career. Ylee (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make about whether or not the quote enhances the narrative may not have come across as I would have liked. I don't mean to imply that Bolden is not a reliable source of information. It's more that Young's flying credentials are established by stating his accomplishments in the prose, and the views of Bolden are the opinion of one individual. At no point in the GA or FA nominations was there feedback that the reader wouldn't think of Young as a good aviator. Bolden's praise doesn't discuss a specific event or capability associated with Young; it is just his opinion that Young was good at his job. There are not other astronauts, aviators, or NASA managers being quoted on their opinion of Young; it's not clear how Bolden's quote is more relevant than their opinions.

If Bolden's opinion is more relevant than others', it should at least be paraphrased per MOS:QUOTE, as sentences like "They're just awesome" and "Never met two people like them" are pretty generic, and it's not really clear what specifically "Everyone else gets into an airplane; John and Hoot wear their airplane" means, other than general praise. Furthermore, the original source does not specifically say that Young and Gibson were the best pilots that Bolden had ever met, just that they stood out and were exceptional aviators.

I disagree that the Bolden quote belongs in the Navy career section. As Young was not done flying when he retired from the Navy, it's not like his aviation career was specific to his naval service. Having it in this section implies that Bolden and Young flew together as naval aviators, which they did not. It would be different if the opinion came from someone such as Lovell or Conrad, who worked with Young prior to joining the astronaut corps. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, you basically claimed that Bolden was being unduly nice to two of his former shuttle commanders, as opposed to offering an objective view. In that context, "subjective" is synonymous with "not reliable"

Bringing up the GA/FA nominations is a straw man. That such a concern never came up during those nominations does not mean that a relevant subjective statement by a qualified, reliable source cannot be added. Bolden's opinion is relevant (not more relevant or less relevant, relevant) because of his experience, positions, and qualifications.

You claim that Bolden's "they're just awesome" and "never met two people like them" are "pretty generic" and therefore meaningless statements? What kind of praise are you used to receiving in life?

You then pretend that you don't know what Bolden's "everyone else gets into an airplane; John and Hoot wear their airplane" means. You know very well that Bolden is further praising Young and Gibson in the highest terms. I know that you know what Bolden is saying.

Bolden does not have to say "Young and Gibson are the best pilots I've ever met" for him to communicate this. The full paragraph (out of a long, long, long answer that praises both men in detail, especially Gibson) is

Yes. Hoot was unbelievable, especially as a pilot. He and John Young were two guys that to this day continue to boggle my imagination in terms of their piloting ability. I’ve met a lot of people in my life in aviation, over thirty-five years; never met two people like them. Everybody else gets in an airplane; John and Hoot wear their airplane. They’re just awesome.

There is no interpretation possible other than Bolden saying that in more than 35 years of flying, Gibson and Young are the two best pilots he ever met. (Again, you claimed above that his praise of the two is "pretty generic". Like Bolden, my imagination boggles.)

I will expand the quote in Wikipedia to include the full sentence starting with "I've met a lot of people", to provide additional context for Bolden's basis for making his subjective statement. I will also move the quote to the end of the NASA section, as per the above discussion. Ylee (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ylee: I request that you focus on content for this discussion, as personal arguments that criticize the editor, not the edits, are counterproductive to getting a disagreement settled. I think we disagree on whether Bolden's opinion needs to be included when discussing Young's flying ability. The point I was attempting to make above is that Bolden's praise does not necessitate the original wording in order to get its meaning across. If his praise is left in, I think this article should follow the guidelines of MOS:QUOTATIONS and paraphrase it appropriately, rather than expanding the quoted text. My take is something along the lines of "Astronaut Charles Bolden described Young and Hoot Gibson as two exceptionally talented pilots that he had worked with throughout his aviation career." I'll make a post over at WP:SPACEFLIGHT to request further input. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the reasons discussed above, I am removing the Bolden quote. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You have not achieved a consensus to do so here or in WP:SPACEFLIGHT, and you have yet to demonstrate that the quote is off-topic, or from an unreliable source. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason. Ylee (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ylee: Conversely, there has been no consensus to leave this quote in, nor has its necessity in the article been demonstrated. WP:ILIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to include it. At the time of this comment, your only contributions to this article have been the repeated inclusion of this direct quote, including its addition in 2014, and the insistence of its necessity. To me, this implies that you dislike that your addition did not survive as this article was improved to GA and FA class, and you wish for it to be included now that the article has passed the reviews to get it to FA. There was plenty of opportunity for you to provide this kind of feedback between the quote's removal in spring 2020 and its FAC in December. I removed the quote because I did not, and do not, think it was an informative quote that provided new information that hadn't already been explained by paraphrased accounts, and it did not belong in a good or featured article. My reasoning is explained above. The fact that no editors who went over the page's edit history during the review asked for it back indicates that its removal was considered a positive change and its absence isn't detrimental to demonstrating Young's flying ability. If you believe the removal of this quote degrades the quality of the article, I invite you to nominate it over at WP:FAR to ensure that low-quality articles do not remain as Featured Articles, rather than engage in an WP:EDITWAR on an article that has already passed multiple quality reviews. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If this quote happens to be my one and only contribution to this article, that is my business and not yours, and does not affect whether the edit is worthwhile. The status quo, not what you want, is what is preserved in the case of a dispute in which there is WP:NOCONSENSUS. (And no, the status quo is not "the state that the article was in when it passed FA".)

Your ascribing WP:ILIKEIT is inapt as the quote passes WP:V and is relevant to the article. My ascribing WP:IDONTLIKEIT to you is more apt, however, as your arguments above basically are "Delete: no need" or "Delete as cruft".

I do not believe that without this quote this article would no longer qualify for FA or GA, and have never implied as such. As I stated above, claiming that I have indicated this is a straw man. Conversely, you are stating that this quote reduces the quality of the article to below GA or FA. (I am especially amazed by your claim that because no one during the GA/FA review process looked over the article's edit history and thought that the by then-removed quote should be restored, that is evidence of the quote's inappropriateness for the article. Since when is reviewing an article's edit history a standard part of the FA evaluation process? I see nothing about this at WP:FA?.) If you continue to disagree with the appropriateness of this quote in the article, I suggest you bring it up at WP:3O.

Speaking of 3O, you wrote above:

If Bolden's opinion is more relevant than others', it should at least be paraphrased per MOS:QUOTE, as sentences like "They're just awesome" and "Never met two people like them" are pretty generic, and it's not really clear what specifically "Everyone else gets into an airplane; John and Hoot wear their airplane" means, other than general praise. Furthermore, the original source does not specifically say that Young and Gibson were the best pilots that Bolden had ever met, just that they stood out and were exceptional aviators.

Again, for the record: Is it accurate to state that

• you describe Bolden calling Young and Gibson as pilots "They're just awesome" and "Never met two people like them" as "pretty generic"

• you state that you do not know what Bolden stating "Everyone else gets into an airplane; John and Hoot wear their airplane" means? You deny that a reasonable interpretation of his statement is that Young and Gibson are the two best pilots he met during his career?

To summarize, because there is no consensus over removing the Bolden quote, I will again restore it. WP:3O is the next step if necessary. Ylee (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Added to WP:3O. And both WP:FA and WP:GA review history to make sure the article is stable. As a measure of what has changed, I find it helps to view the article prior to when "work" began by the nominator. It's a good way to differentiate what the author did and didn't change (and not asking why they chose to do something that they just left untouched). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

3O discussion

•  Question: (Here from Wikipedia:Third opinion). May I start with a couple of questions- Do secondary RS also praise John Young in the way the specific quote does? Does any other source reproduce the same quote (or a likewise one)? Cinadon36 07:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

While Young was still working at NASA, the Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine reported that when he stood up at the astronaut corps' Monday morning meetings, everyone became silent because "He doesn’t say anything unless it’s important", and that astronaut Brewster Shaw said that Young had "the most intuitive engineering mind I’ve ever seen". George Abbey quoted Robert Gilruth as saying that Young was the best engineer at NASA. Another astronaut, Tom Jones, said of Young that "No shuttle malfunction or tight corner of the flight envelope fazed him". Astronaut Robert Crippen said that in the astronaut corps, "if they have a hero, that hero is John Young". Air & Space's obituary of Young said that he was known within NASA as being "an astronaut's astronaut". Historian Andrew Chaikin called him "a space legend". Ylee (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ylee:, thanks for the reply. Would you agree if something written in prose, summarizing Chaikin's view , be inserted instead of the blockquote? My weak suggestion is to go with prose, because that specific quote is from a non-independent primary source. See for example WP:PSTS. Cinadon36 04:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to inserting Chaikin's view, either using the "a space legend" quote directly or not. I would not want it to replace the Bolden quote that the 3O is about, because of the uniqueness of the flavor of praise that a person with his credentials gives Young. ("space legend" is, while a compliment, too vague in my mind. There are a lot of astronauts one could call a "space legend" going back to Yuri Gagarin.) Ylee (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ylee:I see your point, but even if the sensational issue created by the flavor of the quote is a subjective matter (I do not like even subtle sensationalism- but that is a matter of taste) how do you address the issue of quoting a non-independent primary source, which gets too much attention? Seems that is an obstacle hard to pass.Cinadon36 06:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Would this paraphrase work?

Astronaut and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden called Young one of the two best pilots he had known in his career. Robert Gilruth reportedly called him the best engineer at NASA. Historian Andrew Chaikin wrote after Young's death that he was "a space legend".

Or, how about the entirety of what I wrote above starting with "While Young was still at NASA"? Ylee (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I lean towards the first option, but pls do not make any edits before Balon Greyjoy comments. He might offer a valid counter-argument. Thanks. Cinadon36 07:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My primary objection to use of a direct quote is following the guidance of MOS:QUOTE. I think direct quotations are appropriate in quoting specific dialogue pertaining to an event, such as the first words Young said on the moon or throughout a mission, or a speech. I think almost any information stated after the fact, such as Bolden's interview in which he praised Young, can and should be paraphrased. I prefer the paraphrased version referencing Bolden and Gilruth, but I don't think Chaikin's viewpoint needs to be included. That being said, I maintain that the prose detailing Young's selection for 6 spaceflights, especially commanding a moon landing and the first flight of the Space Shuttle, establishes his credentials as a skilled and capable astronaut and does not require additional praise from individuals. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Valid point Balon Greyjoy, it does seem redundant, doesn't add anything meaningful. @Ylee:, does it? Cinadon36 09:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There are others who have flown in space six or even seven times (Mission specialists have more flight opportunities than pilot astronauts), but you don't hear the same kind of praise about their flying and test pilot/engineering skills, because they are not pilots. They may or may not be called "a space legend" after their deaths, but to assume that they will seems like OR. Meanwhile, we have the fact that Young did receive such a plaudit, and others. Ylee (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It is true that other astronauts have had more trips or a far longer stay in space than John Young. However, none of these astronauts also commanded a lunar landing mission or the the first test flight of space vehicle. None of the praise Young received from the above sources, or from others such as the books by Stafford, Cernan, and Scott Kelly, is necessarily incorrect, but readers will not get to the retirement section of the article and be unsure if Young was an accomplished astronaut. The facts about Young's career can stand on their own without the support of others' opinions. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your polite discussion, you made your arguments pretty clear and both were sound. My opinion is that it is not necessary to include a paraphrased quote as it adds almost nothing substantial to the topic. If it were from far above (i.e the POTUS or VPOTUS), or included in a published academic book, then ok. But such claims are of trivial importance. Even though I recommend not to include anything on the article, if you decide to add a sentence, do not add the exact quotation. That was my 2¢.Cinadon36 07:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Cinadon36 for weighing in on this discussion and helping to settle the disagreement. Per your recommendation, I will remove the text in question. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Find a Grave

Acceptable EL. Article does not post an image of his gravestone and the link is not used as a reference. – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a link used as a reference that provides an image of his gravestone; this link does not provide anything unique. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Article title change

@CRS-20: I see that you changed the name of the article to include Young's middle initial. Why did you do this? Per WP:INITS, the middle name/initial should only be included if that was the primary way of referring to an individual. As far as I'm aware, Young is referred to as "John Young" in most sources; his middle initial is not included in most sources beyond stating what his middle name is. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

NASA gives John W. Young or only Young. CRS-20 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sources you are referring to, but Young's middle initial appears to only be included when giving his full name in a title-like fashion. The sources used throughout this article refer to him as John Young, or Young in subsequent mentions. It's only things like official mission posts, biographies, or his obituaries that mention a middle initial. I am changing it back to its previous title. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)