Talk:Robert Wertheim

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that future Rear Admiral Robert Wertheim had a hand in the naming of the MIM-72 Chaparral? Source: "It was at China Lake that he conceived and aided in the development of the CHAPARRAL, a tactical surface-to-air missile system later adopted by both the U.S. Marine Corps and Army." Department of Defense appropriations for 1980, p.361
  • ALT1:... that in 2005, along with Ross Perot, RADM Robert Wertheim was awarded a Distinguished Graduate Award Medal from the USNA Alumni Association? Source: 2005 Distinguished Graduate Award Program, p. 1
  • ALT2:... that a report written by Robert Wertheim led to the United Kingdom adopting Polaris, after Skybolt was cancelled? Source: "In 1962, Admiral Wertheim was tasked to write a reprot on the Polaris missile system as one of the options to substitute for the Skybolt that the United States had planned to sell to the British but then canceled." U.S.-UK Nuclear Cooperation After 50 Years, p. 359

• Reviewed: Rumbo Recorders
• Comment: transferred to mainspace from User:RightCowLeftCoast/Sandbox/Robert Wertheim on 15 October 2021. Article is at least 4.5k characters long. All three initially provided hooks are cited to reliable sources. Nearly all sentences in the article are cited to at least one reliable source, and highest Earwig rating was "Violation Unlikely" at 15.3% which is mainly pronouns. QPQ was completed on 15 October 2021 for the article Rumbo Recorders.

Moved to mainspace by RightCowLeftCoast (talk). Self-nominated at 03:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC).

If possible please hold this article for Veterans Day.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Everything looks good. I have a few comments, all of them minor and none enough to cause me to put the nomination on hold. I'd recommend making the lead section of the article longer. At just one sentence, it is very short, considering Robert Wertheim had quite a few achievements in his life. Additionally, there is a typo in the source quote for ALT2. Finally, I suggest spelling out Rear Admiral in ALT1, as the meaning of the abbreviation may not be clear to those unfamiliar with naval officer ranks. Otherwise, this is good to go! All three hooks are sourced, but personally I find ALT0 and ALT2 more interesting than ALT1. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

ALT0 to T:DYK/P2

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Wertheim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• "in time to join in the occupation of Japan" — Not mentioned in body.
• More details on missile development needed, since this is what he was known for.
• The part about MIT feels out of place. It can go in the lead, just should be more smoothly worked in.
• The Byrd quotation could be added here.

Infobox

• What is the image's date? Is it not in the public domain as a government work?
• "Bob" should be mentioned in the article text.
• "Commands held" doesn't need to be cited, since that fact is cited in the article.
• "Battles/wars: World War II *Occupation of Japan" — Not mentioned in article.
• Names of children should be in the article, not here. Does the dagger mean that he's dead? I only figured that out from clicking on the source—it's not needed, especially since it's mentioned in the article.

Early life

• Anything more to add? Any info between his birth and when he enlisted?
• Parts of footnote b, particularly the first three sentences, can be added to the main text.
• Which senator? This can be placed in the main text.

Military service

• Can this be split into subsections?
• "In April 1946, Wertheim became engaged to Barbara Louis Selig of West Los Angeles;[15] they married in December 1946." — Create a new "Personal life" section and place this in it.
• "received orders for" — What does this mean?
• "Wertheim wished to study nuclear physics, but was due for a sea assignment" — What year is this?
• "as a lieutenant" — What was he before? Any other previous ranks known?
• What is the United States Navy Special Projects Office? What did he do there?
• "After assignment to the Special Projects Office, Wertheim was assigned to the Naval Ordnance Test Station in California." — When? Was this as part of his duties at the Special Projects Office?
• "the cancelled development of the AIM-9 Sidewinder for naval surface air defense" — Was it cancelled after his work, or was he trying to salvage usable information from a cancelled project?
• "its naming" — What does "it" refer to?
• "a report for the United States to sell the United Kingdom the Polaris missile" — Unclear what this means. "a report advocating for"
• "After his time in California" — But wasn't he in DC?
• "Wertheim was elevated to the rank of rear admiral" — What was he before? Any further rank information?
• "he was awarded" — What for?
• "Wertheim contributed significantly to the National Academy of Engineering's parent organization, the National Academy of Sciences." — How did he contribute?
• "At some point in his career, before 1974, Wertheim attended and graduated from the Naval Postgraduate School." — Out of place here, especially given the footnote. I would move to earlier, and drop the whole thing into the footnote.
• "in addition to work on the Polaris and Poseidon missiles" — This sentence feels like it's tossed in and out of place.
• "In April 1979, Senator Robert Byrd" — From what state? This, and some other material, (e.g., his Navy Distinguished Service Medal, HOF induction, Distinguished Graduate Medal, etc.), should probably be placed into a "Legacy" (sub)section.
• When did he leave the military?

Post-military life

• What's a "flag officer"?
• Is New Mexico Military Institute worth a red link?
• "Wertheim was a member of Sigma Xi and Tau Beta Pi." — Again, feels thrown in.

Retirement

• When did he retire?
• Anything known about his second wife?
• A fair amount of this can be moved to the aforementioned "Personal life" section. In fact, I'm not sure you need a "Retirement" section at all, because what remains could probably be a second paragraph in "Post-military life".
• First sentence of footnote h can go in the text.

First set of response to initial review

Lead

On the Occupation of Japan, the subject's assignment aboard the Bordelon at Okinawa is considered part of the allied occupation. I have modified the lead to include the missile systems which the subject worked on. I have modified the statement about his graduation from MIT. I am choosing to leave the Byrd quote in the body of the article, rather than the lead, as I don't want the lead to feel to peacocky. diff --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

On the image, it is originally sourced here, and is a fair use image, as it is "Courtesy of General Electric Company". Although it says that the Naval History and Heritage Command is the copyright owner, out of an abundance of caution I did not upload it to Wikimedia Commons, out of fear that they would delete it within their editing community. I included the subject's nickname in the lead of the article. Occupation of Japan is part of World War II as far as United States Naval History is considered, and as stated above Bordelon, received the occupation medal during the subject's time assigned to the ship. The sons names are not included in the article body, except for within the notes.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Early life

I have scoured the available sources online, and have mined all relative information about the subject I could find, and did not find any information about the subject's life except what is already included in the article; thus if there is information about the subject's life before his attending the New Mexico Military Institute, it is not on the internet or not in a reliable source on the internet. I included information about the subject's parent's within the footnote, as it is not about the subject directly. The source did not include the name of the senator who sponsored the subject's appointment to the Naval Academy.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Military Service

Moved engagement and marriage information to the retirement section, and renamed the section; diff. Removed "received orders"; diff. The dates of his assignment to the Norton Sound are not given in sources used in the article; I have not yet found a source which gives those dates. Page 53 of From Polaris to Trident: The Development of US Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology gave the subject's rank at that time. Other sources giving previous events during the subject's military sources did not include his rank at the of those events, except for his commissioning rank; I added it to the article diff. Added information about his 56-61 assignment to the Special Projects Office; diff. Added years for his assignment to China Lake, diff. Modified information about the Osprey/Chaparral development, diff, and diff. Added information, and modified wording regarding the United Kingdom and the Skybolt and Polaris missile systems; diff.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over

Regrettably, Usernameunique has been inactive for a while and although they have replied to queries, they have twice failed to resume reviewing on the schedule they themselves proposed. The nomination status has been changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Note to nominator RightCowLeftCoast: as best I can tell, you have yet to complete addressing the issues originally raised by Usernameunique, and it would be helpful to any new reviewer if you were to finish doing so as soon as possible. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Picking this one up as a new reviewer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: Apologies for abandoning this. I entered a period of in-activity relating to this relating the the death of my wife in mid-2022. As time permits and I become more active in editing Wikipedia again, I will continue to work on the points raised by Usernameunique, that I had yet to address. As one can see, I did address some of the points, but there still a a lot of points to RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  My condolences. It must have been a very difficult time for you. Ping me if you renominate the article and I can pick it up for review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

Wouldn't the image from https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/08/22/140804/bob-wertheim-sm-54/ be a better choice than a somewhat mediocre sketch? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 21:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Wertheim/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. My name is Hawkeye7, and I will be your reviewer. During this review I may make small edits such as spelling corrections, but I will only suggest substantive content changes in comments here. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make.

My goal as your reviewer is to assess the quality of your work and offer suggestions for its improvement; I want to help you write a truly good article. To this end, I intend to be collaborative and work with a collegial attitude. If I have demonstrated incompetence or caused offence, please let me know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

• Can you move the two references out of the infobox?  Done
• In particular, his nickname "Bob" should be mentioned and cited in the body  Done
• He was also awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal a second time, the Legion of Merit and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal [1]  Done

Early life

• Consider folding footnote b into the body.  Done

Military service

• Footnote c: Neither of them seem notable.  Removed
• "Director of Defense Research and Engineering Dr. Harold Brown," Drop the "dr." (MOS:DOCTOR)  Removed
• Consider folding footnote d into the body.  Done
• Footnote d: Add a link to Skybolt Crisis  Done

Post-military life

• Use "he" on subsequent mention in the paragraph to reduce the repetition of his name.  Done
• New paragraph at "Beginning in 1988"  Done

Images

• Since we have a nice portrait at the top, the non-free artwork can be omitted.  Done

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:

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

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:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Addresses the main aspects of the topic. Some gaps though, so I would not recommend sending it to FAC.

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

5. Is it stable?

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

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

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, I believe that this article meets the GA criteria.

First round of modifications

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for your efforts of re-reviewing the article. I have implemented the changes requested above through multiple edits, which accumulated can be seen here.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.