Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 10/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2022 [1].

Apollo 10

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Tyrol5 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... The dress rehearsal for the lunar landing, which falls rather in the shadow of its famous successor, but was still important as blazing a path almost to the Moon. If this passes, all Apollo flights (not including Apollo 1) will be FAWehwalt (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a co-nomination with Tyrol5--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hawkeye7

[edit]

Wow. What an effort getting all the Apollo missions to featured. Some comments to prove I read it:

  • Sometimes metric is first, and sometimes imperial. Recommend standardising on metric.
    Done. I believe I got them all. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA had planned for what steps needed to be taken" This seems a little convoluted for the purpose. Suggest something like "NASA had planned the steps that needed to be taken"
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the crewed-flight test of the CM, was the "C" mission. The first crewed orbital test of the LM" Define and link command modukle and lunar module. I know you already did it in the lead, but the two are supposed to stand separately.
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its success gave NASA the confidence to skip the "E" mission" You haven't said what that was.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the spacecrafts' trajectory " I think this should be "the spacecraft's trajectory".
    I think it should be "spacecrafts' trajectory", referring to the CSM and LM. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General Sam Phillips" -> "Lieutenant General Sam Phillips"
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On November 13, 1968, NASA announced who the crew of Apollo 10 would be" Well, yes, but they had been training together for longer than that. They had been announced as the backup crew for the second Apollo mission on 22 December 1966, then became the backup for the first mission on 9 May 1967. 1966 press releases1967 press releases1968 press releases (or Brooks, Gromwood and Swenson, p. 374)
I've written out the various permutations.--Wehwalt (talk)
Rank added.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images in the gallery are very small. can we bump them up to 220px?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some seem more like cite web. Could you take a second look?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since The New York Times is linked, should the Orlando Sentinel be also? And Forbes?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare formatting of NASM with fn 48 and 61
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move fn 91 into the bibliography.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swanson and Duke is not used in the article.
Zapped.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another review, Hawkeye. I've handled some of these and will come back for the remainder later (unless Wehwalt beats me to it). Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've covered everything. Thanks also from here and for the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kusma

[edit]

Great work on all these Apollo articles. A few comments:

  • "An 'F' mission" wasn't it supposed to be the only F mission? As the original mission type plans weren't followed anyway, I am not fully convinced the alphabetical designations need to be discussed in so much detail (Apollo 11 manages to tell the story without telling us these internal codes).
I felt it was necessary to give some sort of "how we got here" to set the stage. They did do every mission from A to G except the E mission. The letter codes are mentioned in every Apollo infobox and in the text for most of them. I don't think the Apollo articles need be formulaic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you talking about Apollo 9 before Apollo 8?
That allowed the mentioning of the skipping of the planned "E" mission in a logical order..--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the story about Apollo 2 versus the second Apollo mission a bit confusing. Our crew first were backup crew for Apollo 2, then for the second (crewed?) Apollo mission, then for Apollo 7, which was the first crewed Apollo mission?
Pretty much. The mission that was set to be flown by the Schirra crew was a longer flight of the command module without a lunar module, whereas the planned McDivitt flight was what became Apollo 9, that is, with a command module and a lunar module in Earth orbit. The story is told in more detail in the Apollo 7 article. Do you have thoughts on how better to convey this?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps say that the mission was called Apollo 2 at the time? (Apollo 2 is a redirect to a section in Apollo 1 that says the names Apollo 2 and 3 were not used after the AS-204 fire). The "Apollo 2 was cancelled" story sounds very different here and at Apollo 7: there, it seems like this was a mission to be flown in case Deke Slayton would gain medical clearance and then cancelled because he didn't, while here, it sounds like it was cancelled because Schirra was annoying people at NASA. I would suggest to mention the dates when Apollo 2 was cancelled and when the Apollo 1 fire happened to make it clearer. You could also say a word about what was supposed to happen during the missions (under whatever name). —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What we said on Apollo 7 was that it was "dubbed" Apollo 2. The reason it sounds different is that we used Cunningham's account as a source, and he talks about the Schirra/Slayton matter. Apollo 2 is a bit more peripheral here and we don't have any reason to go into what Cunningham thought about it, we're just trying to explain how Stafford, Young and Cernan came to be on Apollo 10. I've adopted your. suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With five prior flights among them, the Apollo 10 crew constituted the most experienced American crew to reach space prior to the Space Shuttle era. Apollo 10 was the first American space mission to have a crew consisting entirely of spaceflight veterans." doesn't this belong more into the previous paragraph describing the crew instead of the one describing their hypothetical assignments?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "normal rotation of crews during Apollo" was this a formal thing or just Deke Slayton's MO?
It was how he did things, with certain exceptions. It was not formal, but he was consistent enough to satisfy the flight crews.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apollo 10 would be the heaviest spacecraft to reach orbit". Here "Apollo 10" means "the Apollo spacecraft for the Apollo 10 mission" that has just been described, yes? What was the total mass? List of heaviest spacecraft might be a good link to help with comparisons (I am not sure the comparison with the ten Geminis, which is a bit closely paraphrased from the source, is all that relevant). Including File:Apollo Spacecraft diagram.jpg could make it clearer what "the spacecraft" is.
I've added the mass and cut the material about Gemini. There's a limit to how far you can paraphrase sometimes without changing the meaning. Since we're on initial orbit, the "spacecraft" would have included the CSM, LM, and SLA, and I wonder if that's just too much detail for the information we're conveying.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Issues that arose during the countdown were dealt with during the built-in holds" what is the meaning of "built-in hold" in this sentence? I assume this is about the plan allowing extra time for things to go slightly wrong?
Yes, the countdown was held at predetermined times, which allowed catch-up time.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later! —Kusma (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "that this was still within safe limits" so was there a misalignment, but it was within safe limits, or did they measure that any potential misalignment was within the safety limits?
Mission Control determined up to six degrees would be safe. The misalignment was about 3.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The LM crew go into the LM twice. The first time, they "check out its systems", the second time they "inspect" the systems. Did they check out and inspect the same things twice?
Yes, they went in soon after the LOI-2 burn, came out, rested, went back in, and this was the time they separated. I've added language to that effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "standing by to mount a rescue of the LM crew should it become necessary" do we know anything about how this was supposed to work? (No idea how much fuel they had to spare for crazy things like chasing another spacecraft).
That was part of the CMP's job, to go rescue the LM if it made any. sort of orbit. Mike Collins had a list of, I recall, 19 different scenarios.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to stage the LM" the OED says this use of "stage" is OK, but perhaps "separate" is easier on the non-specialists
I've rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Orbital operations ... paved the way for the successful Apollo 11 lunar landing" I would have expected this paragraph in "Aftermath", a section that is currently a bit thin.
Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • mysterious or alien signals: this doesn't really belong into the Snoopy section. If this is about the 2016 TV program, it should be in some "popular culture"/"documentaries"/"media" section; if it is about the astronauts hearing strange sounds, it should not just have a UFO speculation source.
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fastest human spaceflight: is that relative to Earth?
    It is per the source, yes. Clarified. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 21:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section: some of the things learned from the mission could be collected here; in what way were plans for Apollo 11 changed by Apollo 10?
    In my perception, the most significant outcome of Apollo 10, as posited by the secondary sources, is already covered within that portion of the article (after having taken account for your astute comment above about moving this information), namely that the flight of Apollo 10 demonstrated the technical feasibility of the various systems and processes which would be implemented on Apollo 11. I've not seen evidence beyond technical minutae in primary sources that changes deserving of mention here are lacking in coverage, given the primary mission objectives were accomplished without significant hindrance. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 21:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An amateur astronomy blog begun in early 2020 explored the possibility that the descent stage may still be in lunar orbit" primary source for this is the blog itself, looks like undue weight to mention in article body? Could be a fine external link.
I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: "earthrise" is one word? Do we need all these craters?
Earthrise is one word.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut some of them but added a photo of the Apollo 11 landing site taken by 10.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will check back soon, perhaps with more. —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm running out of things to complain about (but a few above are still unanswered; please be explicit if you think they do not need to be actioned, which is quite possible for some). —Kusma (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. Support. —Kusma (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from HAL

[edit]
  • short of the actual descent and landing Is the "the" needed?
    Cut by Wehwalt. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 02:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • enabled the first landing on Apollo 11 two months later. Maybe change to "first crewed landing with"?
    Tweaked. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 02:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With five prior flights among them, Apollo 10 had the most experienced American crew to reach space prior to the Space Shuttle era Was there a Soviet crew more experienced than them?
I don't think so in the same time frame but the source doesn't say and I'm not sure we need to say. The Soviets had had a crew consisting entirely of a veteran of spaceflight, Soyuz 1, though that ended badly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's real minor. No biggy. ~ HAL333 19:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • uncertain it was a good idea, since Charlie Brown was always a failure lol
  • There is a duplicate link of "Command and Service Module"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apollo Landing Site 2 (ALS-2) in the Sea of Tranquillity, the contemplated landing site for Apollo 11 Were there other potential landing sites? If so, would "a contemplated..." be more apt?
By Apollo 10, ALS-2 was the prime landing site. The Apollo 11 crew (and the Apollo 12 crew for that matter) were already training with that in mind. NASA just wanted more photography. ALS-1 and ALS-3 (to some extent) were still in the picture, the western sites were more backups in case of delays.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Apollo/Skylab ASTP and Shuttle Orbiter Major End Items" document, is there an author you could add? Is BW3/MC3 some kind of unit within NASA that developed the report?
It seems to be their internal code. I find in a 1978 telephone directory that "MC3/BW3" was Space Shuttle Orbiter Project Office, Orbiter Project Control Office, Logistics, and the name listed is Aubrey L. Brady, with a secretary, Claranita C. Haefner, and an address at JSC of Building 1, Room 374A. The directory is found here. I'm not sure if we can draw conclusions about who prepared it or if such a compiled (but very interesting) list can be said to have an author or editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would just leave it blank. ~ HAL333 19:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. More comments soon. ~ HAL333 21:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are up to date. Thanks for the compliment and comments. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 11:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Drew ex Machina a high quality source? Could you source the dependent material with something else?
It is. This was discussed in the FAC for Apollo 5, as part of the source review, here. My response was "
According to the author's resume, here, he is a "freelance writer specializing in astronomy, astrobiology and the history of spaceflight with over 500 contributions to books, websites and print magazines including Scientific American and Sky & Telescope Also maintains the Drew Ex Machina website which regularly posts articles on various space-related topics with over 130,000 unique visitors annually." I would tend to say that makes him per WP:BLOG a "well-known professional researcher writing within their field", especially in view of his scientific credentials." It's also been used in the FAs Apollo 15, Apollo 17 and Alfred Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence One issue that was encountered was bad-tasting food, as Stafford apparently used a double dose of chlorine in their drinking water, which was placed in their dehydrated food is somewhat confusing. Did Stafford accidentally do this? For concision you could also just use "reconstituted". Also passive voice.
Yes, the source says he did it "inadvertently". I've rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you place the craters Papaleksi, Coriolis, and King in alphabetical order?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were subsequently flown Subsequently is redundant imo.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all folks. Great work. ~ HAL333 19:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Wasted Time R

[edit]
  • I am concerned about the paragraph regarding the ascent staging issue, which includes this language: Cernan later estimated that they had tumbled about eight times.[74] ... Had they fired Snoopy in the wrong direction, they might have missed the rendezvous with Charlie Brown or crashed into the Moon at high speed.[75] Experts later estimated that a crash would have been imminent if the tumbling had continued for another two seconds.[74] There are comments on the Talk page from 2015 and 2019 saying that this overstates the danger they were in, but the comments were never responded to by any editors of the article. I don't know what the truth of the matter is – I've read the crew debriefing, where they seem to give a cool accounting of it, but the voice recording clearly shows they were alarmed by it when it happened. However the video recording doesn't seem to support the idea that it spun eight times – it looks like it swings wildly one way, then back the other way, then is stable again. And who are these 'experts' who said they were two seconds away from a crash? The source is Cernan's book from 1999, which is written three decades later and has no footnotes or endnotes.
You see where I'm getting. If they really were two seconds away from the LM going into an unrecoverable and fatal plunge into the moon's surface, a catastrophic outcome that would have pushed the Apollo program and the first moon landing back another 1½–2 years in all likelihood, that needs sourcing directly to the experts, and more attention in the article body, and inclusion in the lede beyond the passing mention it gets now. But if it really wasn't that dire a situation, then the article needs modification to say so. And if there is disagreement about how dire it was, then that should be indicated, with Cernan's retrospective account attributed as such in-text. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant text from Cernan's book, for anyone who does not have it, is "Then, as swiftly as it had started, the horrifying little episode ended, a fifteen-second lifetime during which we made about eight cartwheels above the Moon, and Tom jerked Snoopy back onto a tight leash. Ole Mumbles do know how to fly. After analyzing the data, experts later surmised that had we continued spinning for only two more seconds, Tom and I would have crashed."--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the video. They don't spin around eight times. We'll find a less dramatic source.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Cernan info. The rest can pretty much stand on its own, with minor emendation that I've made.==Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the text as it stands now doesn't really address whether or not they were close to disaster. There are some popular history treatments such as this from History.com and this from The Register and this from some blog for instance. Maybe a Note could be added to get into this?
These seem to be a bit alarmist and based on Cernan's dramatic renderings. I don't claim to either be an astronaut or to have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, but orbit is a safe place to be. The danger would come when they burned to change that orbit. Secondarily, there was risk in varying from the flight plan and missing the time for the burn to return to Charlie Brown since then new burns would have to be calculated. Adept piloting saved them from those risks. I don't think there's more to be added on that score.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has always been interest in the question of whether the Apollo 10 LM could have landed on the moon, even before For All Mankind highlighted an alternative history view of the question. But the article discussion of this matter is buried as a paragraph within the "Training and preparation" subsection of the "Framework" section. Maybe it could get its own subsection, so that it shows up in the table of contents?
    I have rearranged a bit to render this so. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 02:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. I would suggest adding a paragraph break before "Craig Nelson wrote ..." to split the capabilities description from the retrospective views.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of For All Mankind, many of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo articles have sections that describe dramatizations/popular culture depictions of the flight. So this could be included in such a section, as well as any others that feature it (does the From Earth to the Moon?).
We'd like to keep this to a minimum and limit it to the above. It's difficult to keep up sourcing standards on popular culture materials. Also, it gets rather trivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re At the time, the Princeton was only eight months from decommissioning.[6], why is this important to include in this article? It is already mentioned in the article on the ship, where it makes sense.
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Stafford becoming Chief Astronaut, and then Deputy Director of Flight Crew Operations, this means that unlike the other two, he never got a chance to walk on the moon. Was this something he was agreeable to, or did he get pushed upstairs?
He wrote he wanted it. I've cited to his memoirs.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the descent stage, the article says Further, it is unclear whether the descent stage impacted the lunar surface, or if it remains in lunar orbit. But that is immediately followed up by three sets of people saying that it crashed. Who is making the case that it is still in orbit? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a sentence about, and a cite to, an amateur astronomy blog that had posited in some depth that the descent stage might still be in orbit. This sentence and reference was removed per another reviewer's comments due to concerns of undue weight. As such, I've reworked the sentence a bit to acknowledge the possibility that the descent stage has crashed (though this has not been proven to be the case, since no crash site has been documented, as suggested by the other sources). Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 02:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the footnotes, are you linking publishers every time (tends to overkill, especially with something heavily used like NASA, which you are doing sometimes but sometimes not) or just first time (hard to maintain, but what you seem to be doing with National Air and Space Museum), or not at all (what you are doing for Space.com)? Fwiw I've gravitated towards 'not at all' in articles I write; it reduces the visual noise and if a source is especially important, I usually mention and link it in the text itself.
We're linking publishers every time. I've adjusted the other cases you cite. The rationale seems to be that the reader probably only examines one ref at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fn 5 and fn 95, the publisher should be in mixed case, like the WP article titles for them, not upper case.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fn 82, you identify the source as a blog. Aren't some of the other sources blogs or personal websites too, like fn 6 or fn 9 or fn 35?
    FN 6, yes. Though founded and edited by notable space historian Robert Pearlman, I don't consider CollectSPACE (FN 35) a blog or personal website. Need to think about FN 9; I'm not as familiar with that source. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 11:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hamish Lindsay was closely involved in the communications and tracking efforts for Apollo at Australia's Honeysuckle Creek. He's written and spoken extensively on Apollo. I think he qualifies under WP:SPS.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is the publisher for fn 93?
    Included. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 11:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the footnotes, newspapers and magazines such as Orlando Sentinel and Forbes and Universe Magazine should be italicized. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe I've fixed all. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 11:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Apollo 10 set the record for the fastest human spaceflight, what made their flight faster than any of the other Apollo lunar missions? Was it some characteristic of their flight profile? Or are all the speeds similar and this one just happened to be larger than the others? What percentage faster was it than the next fastest flight? A lot of text is spent explaining the distance-from-homes record, but the speed record goes unelaborated.
Yes. It was the flight profile. It was designed to get them home in the shortest amount of time feasible. Added. I think the next fastest was Apollo 13 but I'll double-check.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was Apollo 13. Here is a chart showing the velocities. Note that all of the lunar missions had velocities that were quite similar, with Apollo 10 a fraction of a percent ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a good addition, but it might be worth adding that the difference was only a fraction of a percent, like you say.
The record is something of an aside from the story of the mission. I don't want us to get too bogged down in this.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Bibliography, the original edition of The Last Man on the Moon is 1999 by St Matin's Press, see the copyright page at OpenLibrary. And the co-author's name is given as just Don Davis.
I've adjusted that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Bibliography entry for Deke!, why is "(1st ed.)" shown? I'm not sure there was a revised edition and we don't normally state 1st edition anyway.
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "External links", why is Apollo 10 Flight Journal listed, since it is mentioned three times as a footnote.
Individual pages of the journal are cited, it seemed worth citing as a whole--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "External links", same question re the entry for Apollo 10 Press Kit; but the better information about it should be merged into the entry in the Bibliography.
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "External links", "Multimedia", the second third and fifth entries don't fully identify the sites being pointed to. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Identified. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The service module (SM) link and definition doesn't come until the "Hardware disposition" section, but there are at least a couple of earlier uses of SM, so the link/definition needs to get moved up.
    Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the crew of Apollo 10 was awarded an Emmy for the color broadcasts of various mission events that they had provided., this could use a little more detail and a more specific link. It was a special award given out at the 21st Primetime Emmy Awards, held June 8, 1969, and the three were there. I'm not clear on whether it was just for Apollo 10 or for all the Apollo missions up to that point, especially Apollo 8. Unfortunately my WP:LIBRARY Newspapers.com is awaiting renewal so I can see that there are stories the next day about it but I can't read them.
I have access to The New York Times archives and it confirms that it was for all the Apollo missions to that point, though the Apollo 10 astronauts accepted it. I've cut that bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend that it should be removed, as it is still an instance of the Apollo 10 astronauts being celebrated. I think the article can say what the award was for, that they collected it, and give a link to the specific Emmy Awards article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit, earlier in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're up to date again.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about further elaborating on the fastest human speed ever mark, since you only give 61 words to that while you follow it with 135 words on the less-significant farthest distance from home base mark. But overall my comments have been addressed and I'm now in Support. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Apollo_10/archive1&oldid=1104142544"