# Talk:Robert J. Cenker

This article's DYK appearance garnered 9,493 pageviews, [1] enough to have it listed in the permanent DYK Statistics Archive. RobP (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am in the process of making a significant update to this article, and am doing that in my user space. If you have any suggested info to add, please do not make changes in the article itself; instead suggest them here so that I may incorporate them when I publish the update. Thanks! RobP (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Still working it... almost ready to go! RobP (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: I just replaced the existing material with the expanded article. I removed classification of stub as well. RobP (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I modified the WikiProject templates to remove the start class designation. Concerning the general classification rules  here, it looks like a B to me. I updated the Spaceflight classification accordingly and left a notice on that site as follows:

I am going to reclassify (this article) as a B which seems to fit well with its current state. If anyone disagrees, please let me know why. Thanks! RobP (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The Undue weight flag should not be used as that flag has nothing to do with a disagreement on emphasis such as this. That issue can be argued over on Talk without such a blemish on the page! RobP (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The template is not a blemish, it is there to encourage discussion, once consensus has been reached among editors, it can be removed.--RadioFan (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Well it not being a blemish is a matter of opinion. It would be the first thing folks read and it certainly has a bad connotation. If it was warranted, I would say so be it. However, after reading the UNDUE page again to be sure, I do not think this is the kind of "controversy" it is meant to flag. We are not talking about minority viewpoints or mentioning Flat Earth nonsense on a page about the Earth. This is just a matter of opinion on emphasis of the mission following to this one and how often any mention should be included. If that sort of thing were a valid reason for its use - just the degree something should be stressed or not -  that banner would be on practically every article. RobP (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently Challenger is mentioned 8 times in the article, 4 of those make the point that Cenker lone flight on STS-61-C preceded STS-51-L.  Any thoughts on trimming this?  I also wonder if the details on STS-61-C which don't involve Cenker could be trimmed and/or moved to the mission article where appropriate. 
The Challenger disaster is certainly worth mentioning in the context that it triggered Cenker's place as the last civilian payload specialist for several years, but that point need only be made once.  
I'm eager to hear other perspectives.--RadioFan (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Eight times seems like a lot... but one is in the lede which is a summary of the article, and two are in Notes (which many do not even read). So there are really 5 in the main article... and two are in a single sentence mentioning the fatalities. As to the meat of the issue: Before my re-write, (I expanded this article from what was a stub with no citations) the entire article actually was in danger of being deleted. There was not enough content to give it a reason to exist on Wikipedia. One editor called it "just a CV" and asked for a deletion. A vote to delete could have happened at any time. So I wrote this from the viewpoint of a historical perspective: that what made this a notable mission WAS in fact what happened immediately after and how that affected things. Some have loved the approach I took. I guess others not so much. We shall see what happens. RobP (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert J. Cenker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170731004724/https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/events/events-calendar/2017/march/meet-astronaut-bob-cenker to https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/events/events-calendar/2017/march/meet-astronaut-bob-cenker
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert J. Cenker/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 17:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Commencing GA review.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose is clear and easily understood. Follows MOS guidelines.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Article is thoroughly referenced does not contain copyright violations.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Comprehensive and not too detailed.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Article is neutral.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Article is stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All images are correctly licensed and are used appropriately.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Congratulations! This article passes. Codyorb (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


### Review reopened
Per a discussion at Codyorb's talk page, this review is being reopened, and further work will include contributions from Mike Christie, who has agreed to give a second opinion on the state of the article, given that Codyorb is new at reviewing, and some issues came to light. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


### Re-review by Mike Christie
I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I screw anything up.

What makes the following websites reliable sources? I'm not saying they're not reliable, just that I can't find evidence of their reliability from their websites.
spacefacts.de Redundant, so I removed it.
classmates.com (a discussion on WP:RSN seems to say it is not)  I think this falls in the category of not using sources like this (or FaceBook) unless it is for non-controversial bio facts. As this was just for Cenker's High School info, I thought it was OK here.
The discussion I linked to seems pretty unambiguously against it, and specifically talks about using this sort of source for high school information.  I think it should be removed.  We can get another opinion if you really feel this is worth keeping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you get another opinion? There is no other source I could find, and I'd like to keep it if possible as that section is thin to begin with. RobP (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
americaspace.com An on-line space news source with editorial oversight. Looks good to me.
astronautix.com This was pre-internet and unsurprisingly, I could find no better reference for the RCA to GE transformation at the time I wrote this. But I just found this. What do you think of it as a substitute?
Looks like a good source to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Replaced the reference. RobP (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
jamesoberg.com  This is from James Oberg, who is a space journalist and  Wikipedia notable individual, so I think it is good.
collectstpace.com Just a local report on one of Cenker's many public appearances. I think it is OK in context, especially as it provided photos for confirmation, but I will have no heartburn if you feel like removing it.
I found this, which is the original press release; that will work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I replaced the reference. RobP (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the lead could be made a bit longer; it's very thin at the moment.
Expanded it a bit.
spacecraft bus manager: can we get a link for bus?  I assume it's bus (computing), but wasn't sure enough to add it without checking.
Bus references to a model type. There is a Wiki page so I added a link!
Cenker and Magilton trained with career astronauts as well as other Payload and Mission Specialists, including those scheduled for the next scheduled flight, that of the Challenger mission, STS-51-L. This could be clearer. Cenker and Magilton were competing with each other at this point, right?  Only one would be selected?  And was it definite that they were training for the Columbia mission, or could they have been selected for a later mission?  Were others in their training group in competition with them for the Payload Specialist positions for Columbia, or were the others only training for later flights?  I can tell some of this from later in the article, but it should be clear at this point.
Changed to: "...Bob Cenker, and his co-worker Gerard Magilton, were selected to train as Payload Specialists so that one of the pair could accompany Satcom Ku-1 into space." Better? Pre-Challenger disaster mindset, it is possible that if RCA launched another spacecraft on a mission, Magilton (or Bob) would have flown again as they would have been trained and ready. But this is speculation without any reference I could find, so I did not mention it.
Why tell the story of the hazardous launch attempts entirely in quotes?  Quotes are for illustration; I don't see any reason why we couldn't paraphrase most or all of these quotes.
I originally had tried to paraphrase, and other editors complained it was not clear... so I gave up an quoted the expert on this complex issue. Please give it a go if you really think this is a problem.
The satellite is referred to as "Satcom Ku-1" at one point, and "Satcom K-1" at another point; I assume one is a typo.
Typo. Fixed.
reached its geostationary “slot”: can we get a link or explanation for "slot"?  I assume the word is used because "orbit" sounds odd for a geostationary satellite, but a reader who doesn't know what geostationary means isn't going to know that.  A link for "geostationary" would probably be good too.
Slot is shorthand in the industry for "designated geostationary orbital position". I have replaced the shorthand, and added a link.
Is "Shuttle" capitalized or not?  It seems to be inconsistent -- "for the Shuttle Program", and in the next sentence "the shuttle fleet".
Per Wiki article, it should be "Space Shuttle" or "Shuttle".  I made corrections.
Are all the professional societies worth mentioning?  Being a registered PE in Jersey seems a minor thing for an encyclopedia to mention; being a life member of the Penn State Alumni Association also seems pretty cuttable.
Don't know the rules on that, so I put everything relevant I could find. If you feel like deleting some, go for it.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I added a couple of notes on the sources above.  All the other points are fixed, so once those two issues are addressed I'll promote the article to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library)

OK. I think I got everything. Yes? RobP (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
There's just the question of whether we can use classmates.com or not.  I'll post for a second opinion in a moment.


### Second opinion requested
Can Classmates.com be used to source which high school someone went to?  There's a discussion in the RSN archives that seems to argue that it is not acceptable at all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I read through the RS discussion on classmates and came to the conclusion that it is indeed not a RS, so I will remove it now. RobP (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
OK -- then I'll go ahead and promote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance with this matter and helping to improve the article. RobP (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)