Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 11/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2019 [1].

Apollo 11

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Kees08 (talk)

Apollo 11 was the first manned landing on the Moon. We're trying to get the article up to Featured in time for the 50th anniversary, which is in July next year. Article has been overhauled, and is already had an A class review that included image and source reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

All looks very good so far. A few comments,

  • "upper stage". Doubtless it was but I'd use "ascent stage" as you just used that.
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The landing was broadcast on live TV to a worldwide audience." This seems a bit unclear. The landing itself was filmed through one of the LM's windows, if I recall correctly, but was it shown at the time? I don't see that mentioned. Are Armstrong's first steps meant?
    Change to the first steps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[The launch of Sputnik I] precipitated the Sputnik crisis, and triggered the Space Race.[10] President Dwight D. Eisenhower responded by creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and initiating Project Mercury,[11] This reads like he responded to an already-existing space race, rather than reacting to the launch of Sputnik, if you get what I am driving at.
    No, but changed to "Eisenhower responded to the Sputnik challenge by" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This choice of mode meant that the spacecraft could be launched by the Saturn V rocket that was then under development.[20] " maybe "... launched by a single Saturn V rocket, that was ..."?
    I meant as opposed to Nova (rocket), but changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can synonyms be found for some of the "tested"s describing the earlier Apollo missions?
    "Test" is more technically accurate, but done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The support crew developed procedures in the simulators, especially those for emergency situations, so these were ready for when the prime and backup crews came to train in the simulators," the repetition of "in the simulators" could be avoided.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the symbolism of the eagle having an olive branch in its claws be explained, hopefully specifically related to "we came in peace for all mankind"?
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At some point in the article, it might be worth mentioning the space flown items sold from the Armstrong estate at high prices earlier in 2018. Possibly in connection with the PPKs.
    Thinking about it. Have added it to the Neil Armstrong article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I even bought some of those items :). Just wish I was able to get more! Kees08 (Talk) 23:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say the astronauts each had a PPK. I'm not certain about Apollo 11, but for Apollo 15, there were two each, one with maximum weight eight ounces that got to go in the LM, and one that stayed in the CM maximum weight five pounds. There were probably large numbers of mission patches, state and national flags and similar things, probably made of beta cloth, that might be worthy of mention, that NASA presented to people.
    Much smaller on Apollo 11. There were five 0.5-pound (0.23 kg) bags; three stowed on Columbia before launch and two on Eagle. Added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Scheer's suggestion, the CM was named Columbia after the Columbiad, the giant cannon shell spacecraft fired by a giant cannon (also from Florida)" I think Columbiad is the gun, not the shell.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Site selection: I think you should say flat out (it can be pieced together, but still) that they wanted a large flat place on the lunar equator and that the Sea of Tranquility fulfilled this. It might also be worth stating that science was not a major consideration in the site selection in the way it would be later.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saturn V SA-506, the rocket carrying the Apollo 11 spacecraft, heads out of the Vehicle Assembly Building and down to Launch Complex 39" I think the stately pace would justify "moves" rather than "heads", with "toward" for "to", perhaps. Watch your complete sentence captions needing periods.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • Was EASEP considered part of the LM for purposes of making a comparison with Snoopy?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The command and service modules were mated on January 29, and shipped from the Operations and Checkout Building to the Vehicle Assembly Building on April 14.[56]" Is "shipped" the best choice of words?
    Probably. Changed to "moved". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(5,357-long-ton; 6,000-short-ton) " Not sure you need the dashes before "ton".
    It's caused by the MOS, which wants the hyphens in adjectival form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning the crew being awakened prior to launch and the traditional breakfast?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I know there was no SIM bay yet, but were there scientific experiments he carried out? Did he take photographs? Did he have an organized program of activities? I realize Apollo 11 did not stay long on the Moon's surface, but some detail would be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to watchlist this Hawkeye; let me know what you need help taking care of. Kees08 (Talk) 05:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you're all set on these yet, I know you want to move this FAC along. Could you ping me?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Looks like we need to add what Collins did during the mission, and address the cultural significance (something another reviewer requested). I will give you a ping when I (hopefully soon) address these. Kees08 (Talk) 04:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the section on what Collins did during the mission. Kees08 (Talk) 22:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've looked it over and all looks good. Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOD

[edit]

Excellent work! Support on prose; please check my copyedits. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Very well written, although I got an impression that some points are discussed in great detail (e.g., "Prime crew", "backup crew") while others lack important information. Most obvious in the landing section, and I think this is one of the most important parts. It does not describe how Armstrong was maneuvering, how he finally found a landing spot, the visibility problems due to a stir caused by the engines, and so on. In other sections, I would have loved to read something about personal relationships between the astronauts. Above all, the decision who will be the man to set foot on the moon first, and how this influenced the relationship between Armstrong and Aldrin. Also, did they had to change suits before EVA?

Minor points:

  • An early and crucial decision was the adoption of lunar orbit rendezvous, under which a specialized spacecraft would land on the lunar surface. – Would be good to add what the "rendezvous" exactly is.
    Hm, I edited those sentences extensively and must have forgotten your original request. It is much better than before I think, but I suppose I do not describe lunar rendezvous still..do you want me to add that in still? Kees08 (Talk) 23:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I added an explanation of rendezvous. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: I added more detail to the landing and am addressing the other points. When you said you would like to see more detail in other sections, were you listing out examples and wanting me to find the rest to expand, or were you listing the specific areas you would like to see expanded? Kees08 (Talk) 21:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions so far, looks great. No, as soon as something on the decision "who is going to be first on the moon" is added, I am entirely happy. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Started a section which can use a little more work. I only have two sources with me, but Collins' first book would be a good additional source since he was close to the issue and it was published near when the mission occurred. Kees08 (Talk) 21:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Woof. I could write an entire article on that. I did not include what Aldrin perceived his reactions to be, or what Armstrong and Collins perceived Aldrin's reaction to be. I tried to include the behind-the-scenes decisions and what Aldrin perceived the rationale to be. What do you think of it now? Kees08 (Talk) 03:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In both First Man and Carrying the Fire they discuss how some thought Armstrong was 'exercising his commander's prerogative', I could include that if you think I should. Kees08 (Talk) 03:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is much more than I was asking for. Supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I reviewed this at its ACR, but have read through it again. The article is in excellent shape, and I have the following comments. Please note though that I might be without an internet connection for the next few days, so it may take me a while to respond:

  • "An early and crucial decision was choosing between lunar orbit rendezvous" - can you say when this decision was made?
    Yes, and changed all that around because I did not have the complete story. Date the decision was announced is included. Kees08 (Talk)
    The story is a long and complicated one - whole books have been written on the subject, which has its own article. Agree with the decision to date it from the public announcement on
  • "Apollo 11 was the second all-veteran crew " - I'd suggest tweaking this to "Apollo 11 was the second all-military veteran crew" as the term could also be referring to the previous space experience of the astronauts
    The intended meaning appears to be reflected, since the article is referring to the second time all of the astronauts have had previous space experience. Armstrong was actually a civilian astronaut. Kees08 (Talk) 06:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As all three had served in the military and "veteran" without anything else is most commonly used in reference to military personnel, I'd suggest tweaking the wording to clarify this then. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. How is the wording now? Hard to rephrase that sentence. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good Nick-D (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fueled by Aldrin's fondness for Scotch" - this is a bit indirect. Was he drunk?
    "Drunk" is such a harsh word. Collins just says he became red faced and voluble. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To throw a little bit of fuel on this, all three astronauts have different stories for this event. Might be better to remove it and replace it with more generic interactions (I have some in mind), and save the story for the book.

Kees08 (Talk) 03:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This hasn't been addressed yet. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick-D: Not sure if you are out of town yet, but I have addressed this issue. Kees08 (Talk) 02:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 1969, Apollo 10 flew to within 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) of Site 2" - was this the lunar module's decent to near the moon's surface, or did the command module pass over at this altitude?
    Specified Kees08 (Talk)
  • When did Eagle reach Columbia after taking off from the moon? (the time it took off and the time it was jettisoned are noted, but not the time of the rendezvous)
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The crew were also warned that they would not be in a full-lift (heads-down) attitude when they entered P67." - what this means is a bit unclear
    It means they would still be face up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remains of the ascent stage lie at an unknown location on the lunar surface, after being abandoned and impacting the Moon" - this is stated earlier in the article. I'd suggest that one of the instances where this is mentioned (perhaps the first?) be removed.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the discoveries of armalcolite, tranquillityite, and pyroxferroite the only significant scientific discoveries other than the astronauts personal observations which arose from Apollo 11?
    It was the only ones that the astronauts personally did. However, a lot of interesting science has resulted from the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment. Apollo 11 was intended as an engineering mission, not a scientific one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the types of rocks they found, probably nothing more to add than that. Kees08 (Talk) 18:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a bit of a bigger ask, the article would benefit from a paragraph or two on the political, cultural and technical significance of Apollo 11. Nothing in the body of the article explicitly fleshes out the statement in the lead that "Apollo 11 effectively ended the Space Race". This would also allow the excellent quote which concludes the article to be placed more firmly in context. The section could discuss the impact the landing had on people around the world (with many people alive at that time remembering exactly where they were when Eagle landed), and its influence on the subsequent space program - for instance, some sources argue that the public rapidly lost interest in the space program after Apollo 11, and NASA has never been able to reignite strong/sustained interest, even when manned landings on Mars or a return to the Moon are proposed. Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more that Congress lost interest in funding it. Public support was always soft. There was a brief moment in 1957-62, but afterwards traditional American antipathy towards science reasserted itself. During Apollo 11, a lot of opponents were swept up in the wonder of it all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Drive-by: if you do include some reactions, don't forget to try and work in J.G. Ballard's quip: "If I were a Martian I'd start running now!" Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked out a book called 'The Race' by James Schefter that I thought might cover the issue. Unfortunately, the last lines of the book after describing the Apollo 11 landing are 'The race was over. America won.' I will see what else I can find. Kees08 (Talk) 23:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note sure if you want updates, but they help me keep track of the work remaining. It is a lot closer. Added in the positive and negative reactions for balance, which was reflected in the sources I was reviewing. Plan to add in a paragraph on the decline in public interest, while not going into too much detail since this is not the Space Race article. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt and Nick-D: What do you think of the section as it is now? Kees08 (Talk) 06:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks OK, let me think about it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think this is OK. It could be expanded a bit - for instance, were there different reactions in the Soviet Bloc and third world than in the US and its allies? (as I understand it, the Soviet government took being beaten to the Moon with good grace, not least as it was still ahead of the US in other aspects of its space program and its moon program had been a fiasco). It would be helpful to clarify "some called Apollo 11 the turning point of civilization" - who are these "some", and what did they mean by this? Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick-D: I have added the paragraph you requested. Let me know what you think. I removed the quote, it was not all that important to the section. I do not think I will find good sources on third world country reactions to the landing, and I am not sure it is needed either. Kees08 (Talk) 03:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not realize I did not take care of the fondness of scotch comment yet. I will take care of that tomorrow. Kees08 (Talk) 07:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting as I'm going to be out of town for a few weeks from tomorrow and won't be able to follow this review. My comment about the need to clarify "a heated discussion followed that evening, fueled by Aldrin's fondness for Scotch" has not yet been addressed, but I'm sure it will given the strong track record of the nominators and their comments in relation to this above. Nick-D (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to fix

[edit]

I am working on something else and found an error I want to fix later. If I find others I will collate them here. Kees08 (Talk) 23:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still on holidays for a couple more weeks. I have a complete copy of my digital library, and a box of books I brought with me, but I don't have all my books. Currently I am reading Space in the American Imagination (1997). We could use a cultural historian like Lindleyle; I'm a techno-military historian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean to link to a user with only a few edits? I am back from travels and now have a library card; if there is anything I should check out let me know. Otherwise I will mostly use my personal collection to address the comments given to us so far. Kees08 (Talk) 03:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Apollo 11 photo map.svg is a re-colored image based on this USGS PD image. Lunar surface journal content is typically copyrighted, as the page the image is found on indicates. Obviously the copyright claim could be invalid, and they do not specify the copyright on the individual photo (they typically do not). As long as we properly attribute who recolored it, can we keep this image?

@Nikkimaria: Would you have a second to answer the copyright question I have above? Kees08 (Talk) 01:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the colouring is not sufficiently original to garner new copyright under US law. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for looking at it. That is where I was leaning, mostly wanted to have it documented that we discussed it somewhere. Kees08 (Talk) 21:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the source and the authors according to this discussion. Kees08 (Talk) 03:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Dead links: the link in ref. 169 is dead. There are further dead links: under "External links" the "Apollo Anniversary" item from National Geographic News, and under "Multimedia" the Smithsonian 3-D model item
    Out of curiosity, what is the FA policy for dead links? I know GA allows them, wondering when that becomes disallowed. Kees08 (Talk)
    The relevant policy is WP:Nutshell: Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. It is generally held that means that link rot must be repaired in Featured Articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted the dead external links, that area needs further cleanup anyways. Fixed the dead link in ref 169. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Retrieval dates missing from refs 8 and 189
    Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • Ref 144 lacks source and publisher information
    Do you think that citation is necessary? I brought it up in the A-class review, we already have his quote cited, not sure we need to cite the verse as well (so a reader could prove that he quoted the Bible correctly maybe?) Kees08 (Talk)
    I thought the readers might like to look it up for the actual context. I did. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know how to cite the Bible? I am fine with it staying, I tried to figure it out and was at a loss. I can try again if you do not. Kees08 (Talk) 04:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I used a template to link to Wikisource, not sure what else to do on this. Kees08 (Talk) 02:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 173 and 192 should give publishers rather than web addresses
    Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
  • Ref 194 shows hyphens in page ranges
    That is as it should be. The document uses the (section number)-(page number) style, it is linked if you want to double check. Kees08 (Talk)

In general the sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I have one question for you above, the rest have been addressed. Kees08 (Talk) 18:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Is there anything else you suggest I do? Kees08 (Talk) 07:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No further action required on sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review Brian. Kees08 (Talk) 02:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

It seems like all the images are pertinent to the section where they are mentioned. ALT text is mostly lacking though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I will keep adding alt text as I find time. The closed captioning on File:AP11_FINAL_APPROACH.ogv is still in work also. Kees08 (Talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: For consistency, I think we should either have all alt-text or no alt-text as we are a little betwixt and between right now. But I don't think that need hold this up any further. Sarastro (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2019 (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_11/archive1&oldid=878275170"