Talk:David Scott

message: This section could use more detail.  Also, it's not exactly NPOV.  (Although I agree with the POV taken, it's unencylopaedic.) --Apascover 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamp scandal 

message: Wouldn't it be useful to write about the hammer and feather experiment. It's certainly notable.
--98.14.113.232 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feather and Hammer 

message: David Scott has concerns about this article's accuracy, though it's not immediately clear to me what those are. See http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/12/sculpture_on_the_moon_paul_van_hoeydonck_s_fallen_astronaut.html. Somebody here might simply get in touch with him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicsworks (talk • contribs) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's because this isn't reflected in the article:
 Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He also refers to his book, Two Sides of the Moon, in the article. I found the relevant section here on Google Books. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy concerns 

message: This section is way too long. I think it's actually longer than the main article. I would suggest cutting it back to at most two paragraphs. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair amount of it probably should go in the main article, yes. I felt that, since this is the article on Scott, it should in particular reflect his take, particularly since he has recently complained about it being inaccurate.But, in retrospect, the original article leaves a lot to be desired, as well. I will probably have to rewrite it, too. Or maybe just transfer the bulk of what I wrote here to it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Four grafs seems about right. Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamp section 

message: Hi,
checking Apollo 15 and List_of_spacewalks_and_moonwalks_1965–1999 and their relevant sources, I come to the conclusion that David Scott performed a total of 5 EVAs:
# Apollo 9 - stand up EVA, duration 1 hr 17 min
# Apollo 15- Stand up EVA, duration 33 min 07 sec
# Apollo 15 first moon walk, duration 6 h 32 min 42 s
# Apollo 15 second moon walk, duration 7 h 12 min 14 s
# Apollo 15 third moon walk, duration 4 h 49 min 50 s
Therefore: 5 EVAs, total EVA time should be 20 hr, 24 min 53 sec.
I am correcting the article accordingly. Golan's mom--Golan's mom 09:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total EVA time 

message: I suggest using something like:
 | caption       = (1971 photo)
to indicate that the photo is not a recent photo. Its understood why iconic photographs are preferred, but then they should be dated. (Arrived here by way of the video on the 'gravity' article.) -Inowen (nlfte) 06:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph dating 

message: The account of the Fallen Astronaut statue debacle as written here seems heavily biased toward the artist's side, giving short shrift to Scott's and NASA's side of the story. Yes, it seems to be well-sourced with the Slate article, but the paraphrase written here doesn't seem to give sufficient weight to Scott's side of the story (as the reasonably balanced Slate article seems to). NASA has always had a policy against commercial exploitation of government space programs, and Scott's intent was to keep in the spirit of that policy, memorializing the dead astronauts and cosmonauts without publicity or profit to the artist. My understanding to now has been that the artist, not Scott, was the one who misunderstood the agreement made at their first meeting, though admittedly communication must have been poor. Check out the Fallen Astronaut Wikipedia page, which may be a little light and probably could benefit from expansion using the Slate article as a source. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem particularly biased to me, but take a stab at revising it. Your edits are usually pretty good. TJRC (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? "While Scott had been under the impression that it was intended as a memorial, Belgian sculptor Paul Van Hoeydonck had created it as a tribute" clearly takes the artist's side of the dispute, while Scott's intentions as a memorial had always been clear. I've fixed it, and also did some cleanup to better reflect what the Slate article actually says. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added more from the Slate article in clearing him. refs probably need to be punched up for FAC. Buffs (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the NY Times is a better source and I've basically adapted language from the postal covers incident for the purpose. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased section: ''Fallen Astronaut'' 

message: This is not wrong, but I think it is misleading. In each West Point class of the era, the the graduates publicly nominated which arm or service they wanted to go into, in class rank order. Each arm had only a certain number of places, so in that sense it was competitive. Put simply, at 5th place, Scott could have taken anything he wanted. Normally, the top graduates went into the Corps of Engineers (in some wartime classes they weren't given a choice). Scott's class of 1954 was no exception; of the top 25, the engineers took 10; four chose the Air Force; three chose the infantry; three chose armour; and five chose artillery. Of the 633 in the class, about a quarter went into the Air Force. How low could you go and still get into the Air Force? 631st out of 633 apparently. Note how Scott is wearing his West Point class ring in the infobox photo.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went by the autobiography. I'll rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted the errant information. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Point 

message: Hello , I've just made a few tweaks and have a couple of questions.
* At "small aluminum sculpture, Fallen Astronaut, by Paul Van Hoeydonck", the Paul Van Hoeydonck link redirects to Fallen Astronaut, (on which is a link to his nl article). Should the second link be changed?
* Under NASA management, I stumbled at the bit about Scott granting Yeager flights at Dryden. (It sounded like the master was now the apprentice.) I found the Note 5 on Chuck's page which helped. Can I suggest adding a small explanation, something like 'where the retired Yeager was a consulting test pilot'? Is there something in refs to support similar wording?
Thanks for any help. JennyOz (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the existing ref would support that. I meant to add more detail about Yeager. As for the Van Hoeydonck link, it is fine to go to nl. That would be a worthy article for someone to write for en. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think an English Van Hoeydonck article would be worthy--WP:ONEEVENT. He's not notable for anything other than this fiasco. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added a little to the Yeager mention. Pls tweak if necessary. Thanks both. JennyOz (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification help please