Talk:Apollo 1/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look and make straightforward copyedits as I go, and jot queries below - I will try to give this a big a shove to FAC as possible: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up so quickly. It seemed to me you "bombed" it with cite-needed tags, but I guess it's OK you're being tough if you think it's close to being ready to shoot for FA. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer's notes:

Don't need inline references for uncontroversial sentences in lead

I agree that references shouldn't be needed in the lead as long as they are provided in the body, and have removed all but one of these. The thing is, you never know what some moron will think is controversial. People have objected to calling this the "first manned Apollo mission" because it didn't fly, so I kept this reference. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay/agreed, keeping that one sounds prudent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

while the Command Module's hazards were corrected - "addressed" a better word here  Done

Most of the Apollo manned test flight plans section is lacking in inline references  Done

Elsewhere there are scattered bits needing sources, which I have marked with tags.

• I've filled in all but one of these (tour of pad 34) with citations. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The Aldrin book mention should be converted to a ref

The Civic and other memorials needs more sourcing, as does the popular culture section

• I've cited the first 3 pop culture references. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Archive 1 of this talk page shows a consensus that the memorials should only apply to the entire crew, or memorials similarly applied to all three, but it's gotten bloated again with uncited, individual memorials. I'm going to move these to the Grissom, White, or Chaffee pages. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the relevance in the books listed in the Further reading section Moved to Talk page.

I'll continue with the prose once the sourcing sorted (no point copyediting something if the facts need changing or it gets removed)

Second round of reviewer's notes:

Grissom became so frustrated with the inability of the training simulator engineers to keep up with the spacecraft changes, that he took a lemon from a tree by his house - I don't understand the significance of this...

I don't think this is just irrelevant trivia; much has been made of Grissom's comment (as he made it to his wife): "I'm going to hang it on that spacecraft;" commonly, but incorrectly taken to mean that Grissom thought "the spacecraft was a lemon", but the fact is he was upset with the simulator rather than the spacecraft. Do you really want to delete it, or should we try to explain it (possible OR problems)? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

aaah, point taken. I wasn't pointing out because it was irelevant, only that I couldn't understand the gesture - but now you point out the "lemon" inference it is obvious. The linking of "lemon" with "dud" didn't enter my consciousness while reading it...never mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Lovell and Kluger reference is unformatted (presumably is Lost Moon so needs isbn etc.)

 Done JustinTime55 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• After the fire occurred on board the Apollo 1 capsule NASA delayed .... unnecessarily wordy, i'd be happy with "After the accident NASA delayed.... "
• The reason for the delay was so .. --> "This was so "
• Ref needed at the end of the first para of NASA's Response section. Important too here.

No, no, no!!! This was just added by a drive-by IP user. I believe it is highly inflammatory, and non-NPOV the way it's presented here. I've moved it into the Talk page for discussion. (Just the kind of thing I was afraid would happen during a review.) JustinTime55 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Internal acrimony developed between NASA and North American.. - not internal, but maybe simpler as "Relations soured/worsened/deteriroated between NASA and North American...."

 Done JustinTime55 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

On the NASA side, Joseph Shea became unfit for duty in the aftermath and was removed from his position, although not fired - leaves me wanting to know why

OK, I'll look for the details (mental instability) from his article page, provided it's well cited.

Thing is, the comment just sorta sits there and it isn't clear how it's related to Apollo 1 as is, so this is the reason I ask about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Command Module redesign has only one reference. I presume alot comes from this...?

OK...I'll try to find more specific citations for these details. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required: just a last few...

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: good ol' NASA...

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Look, looks all good apart from a few tags, which I suspect are in stuff you've read already. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been working here and there on this, are there additional citations that are needed, or anything else to complete the review? Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok we're there. GA pass Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)