Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 7/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) 10 December 2020 [1].

Apollo 7

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the first Apollo crewed mission to enter space, famous at the time but soon overshadowed and almost forgotten today except for the "mutiny" aspect which led to it not only being the last hurrah for Wally Schirra (who had already announced his retirement) but for the other astronauts as well.Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Is the lead image really the right one? The television aspect is just barely mentioned in the lead. Many readers don't read past the lead and so it seems to me that a more representative image might be something else, such as an image of the rocket. (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the rocket.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree The most representative image of a space flight is not necessarily the launch rocket, but rather an image of something for which the flight is iconically notable. For instance, Apollo 11 is known for the first human landing on the Moon, and so our lead image of the featured article is the picture of Buzz Aldrin standing on the lunar surface. Apollo 7 is known for being the first crewed Apollo flight after the Apollo 1 fire, and the public at the time probably remembered it for the first live telecast of the astronauts in flight. The rocket just makes the article run-of-the-mill. Please put the TV photo back in the lead. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JustinTime55. While I do like launch pictures, I think the television photo is a better choice for the lead image. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Balon Greyjoy

[edit]
  • I think the background section should lead the Crew/Mission Control section. As the article stands, the first part of the body immediately goes into listing the astronauts, and then the subsequent section discusses their selection.
I've merged the sections. I feel you have to introduce the astronauts before you discuss them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the test that had taken the lives of the Apollo 1 crew" should be rewritten (my take is replace the bold text with "killed") per WP:EUPHEMISM
OK--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and when he departed the spacecraft area as the pad was evacuated prior to launch, after Cunningham said, "I think Guenter's going," Eisele responded "Yes, I think Guenter went."" This doesn't make much sense. If I remember correctly (I think it was Schirra's bio) the joke here is that Wendt was in the capsule until he absolutely had to leave prior to launch, and Cunningham was making it seem like he's actually coming along for the mission. It's a pretty inconsequential detail about the mission, especially since Wendt didn't get trapped in or overstay the time he was supposed to be there, and doesn't need to be included.
The joke is Guenter Wendt/Guenter went sound the same. This is a well known incident (as such things go), though sometimes Schirra is incorrectly given credit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the Apollo 7 CSM have a name? I can't find any listed, but it's an abrupt end to the paragraph that Schirra wanted to give it the name Phoenix and NASA denied him.
I've filled this out some.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "used on all subsequent Apollo program missions" As stated later in the page, the Saturn 1B was used again on the Apollo-Soyuz mission and the Skylab flights. While it's true that it was never used again on another Apollo program mission, I don't think this is a necessary detail, as it's splitting hairs between Apollo missions and other missions flying almost identical hardware.
OK. I've massaged this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It differed from its predecessors in carrying less telemetry" As far as I know, telemetry is the data itself, not the machines measuring it. I'm assuming this should be "less telemetry equipment." That being said, it still had an enormous number of sensors that provided flight data, so unless the unmanned missions carried a significant amount more of the equipment, it doesn't seem like a relevant detail.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the all-important engine that would place Apollo into and out of lunar orbit" remove "all important", as there are plenty of other important components whose failure would have resulted in a mission cancellation, and maybe rephrase it to say "future Apollo CSMs" to eliminate any confusion on what part of Apollo is being discussed, and why they care since they won't be going to the moon on this particular mission.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had been fired only on a test stand, and although the astronauts were confident it would work, were concerned it might fire in an unexpected manner, necessitating an early end to the mission" This seems like a bit of a run on sentence. Also, isn't this the case for almost all the engines on a given mission (minus some redundancy in the first stages)?
I think the RCS engines could not get them in a mess the SPS engine could not get them out of, but the reverse was probably not true. Sentence split.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eisele remembered being startled by the sudden violent jolt they received upon first activating the SPS, leading to Schirra yelling "Yabba dabba doo!" in reference to The Flintstones cartoon." I know it says Eiesele remembered because his book is being referenced and that Schirra yelled because of the jolt, but this currently reads like Schirra yelled "Yabbba dabba doo" because of Eisele remembering something. I would just rephrase it to say that the RCS caused a sudden jolt, which caused Schirra to yell.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "within perhaps 150 feet (46 m) of the S-IVB" I'm guessing it says "within perhaps 150 feet" because that is what the source material says, but I don't think an exact number should be given if the question is also being asked if its accurate. If there is nothing definite about how close they station kept, I would just leave it as "close" and let the picture of the rendezvous demonstrate that they were close by.
Fair enough. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schirra, a captain in the Navy, liked his coffee" While military people stereotypically drink coffee, I think saying that Schirra was "a captain in the Navy" implies that he only liked it because he was in the Navy, or that non-Navy folks wouldn't be so enthusiastic to drink it. It makes just as much sense to say that "Schirra liked his coffee..."
In this case, Schirra says, 'Oh, no. This is terrible. You're asking a Navy guy to give up coffee. You're crazy.". I think that's something more than "Schirra liked coffee.".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the point Schirra was trying to make, I can say from firsthand experience that other service branches also enjoy their coffee and the Navy as an organization doesn't have ownership of coffee drinking. Maybe rephrase it to something along the lines of "Schirra insisted on bringing coffee on the flight, despite..." to highlight that it wasn't just that he enjoyed the occassional cup of joe but that he really wanted to bring it along. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the insisted part but I otherwise went along the lines you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One difficulty that was encountered was with the sleep schedule, which called for one crew member to remain awake at all times; Eisele was to remain awake while the others slept." I'm assuming there were also times when Cunningham and Schirra were the only crewmember awake? This reads like it all fell on Eisele to be up by himself and everyone else could sleep.
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the quotations around "Mutiny" or rephrase it (maybe with "Crew protests") per MOS:QUOTEPOV. I know it's often referred to as the "mutiny in space", but the quotes make it seem like the article is implying doubt on if it was actually a mutiny.
  • "Cunningham heard the rumors and confronted Kraft in early 1969; Kraft denied making the statement "but his reaction wasn't exactly outraged innocence." Kraft commented in his memoirs, "it was like having a ringside seat at the Wally Schirra Bitch Circus." Rephrase "the rumors" as it's not clear to what rumors it is referring to, since the previous sentence just says that by some accounts Kraft spoke to Slayton, and doesn't make it seem like it was a rumor going around. I'm assuming Kraft is calling the mission the "Wally Schirra Bitch Circus," but this reads like that is his name for when Cunningham confronted him, which doesn't make much sense. The quote describing Kraft denying the statement doesn't really have a neutral point of view. It presents both sides of the argument but then makes it seem as if Kraft can't be trusted, when that is really just Cunningham's opinion of Kraft's response, and I don't think the accuser can be seen as a fair judge here.
I've removed the bitch circus. Remember that NPOV can be the result of giving several very partisan points of view. There is no certain truth here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just say that that Cunningham confronted Kraft, but he denied making the statement? It's already a questionable denial, as the previous sentence says that Kraft did say it, according to some account. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that's incomplete. Cunningham's opinion of Kraft's denial is germane.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "messy" before divorce as that is tough to judge objectively, and also find a way to work in the part about him being the first astronaut to divorce without the use of parentheses, as it is an abrupt statement in the sentence
Yes, I've edited it, but there are several books that indicate that it wasn't just the divorce. The Astronauts Wives Club sympathized with Harriett, and their husbands were uncomfortable with Eisele's new wife Susie, who knew too much about what they got up to in Cocoa Beach. Worden subsequently got a divorce with very little blowback and it wasn't just because Eisele had broken trail for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a better was to describe Eisele's performance as backup CMP? Casual doesn't really state how he acted; maybe "laziness?"
Changed to "indifferent'.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include when Eisele resigned from the Astronaut Office and military
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To keep the section chronological, move the Exceptional Service Medal paragraph up before the paragraph starting with "None of the Apollo 7 crew members flew in space again"
I've rejigged the paragraphs somewhat.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article states that Eiesle and Schirra died before receiving their Distinguished Service Medal, there death years should be put in there, rather than at the end of the section.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on your definition of "at" vs "next to," but I would just state that the Frontiers of Flight Museum is at Love Field, since its parking lot connects to the taxiway.
That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very biased here, but I like the photo of the command module
I will let the reviewers settle it. I don't have a strong view.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was kidding to some degree (but I am glad to see it in the article). I took that photo a few years ago at the museum! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations
[edit]

I know in my previous reviews of your nominations I have been critical of the use of direct quotations. The direct quotes that I address below are ones that I believe should be paraphrased, most of which aren't direct quotes from primary sources. I understand the importance of quoting first hand descriptions and communications, but I don't believe that secondary sources should be directly quoted, as the quoted material is itself a paraphrase and rewriting of what occurred.

Many of these touch on the mutiny and can't adequately be dealt with using primary sources such as the Mission Report and the voice log. There is no real mention of it in the Mission Report, other than veiled references in the pilots' report. There are some things that can be gotten from the voice log, but we're going to have to be guided by the secondary sources there to tell us what is significant. A lot of this is how it was perceived, both by the astronauts and by those on the ground. Quotes from the participants (astronauts, Kraft, others) tells us how they perceived this, and the secondary sources tell us how historians have viewed what is, after all, what Apollo 7, to the extent it is remembered, is remembered for. Maybe it's me as a lawyer, but I tend to view letting the sources speak for themselves as superior to me paraphrasing and possibly misinterpreting or losing nuance, to say nothing of the potential POV pitfalls of speaking in Wikipedia's voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that these opinions are important and that its important to use secondary sources to get a historical viewpoint, I maintain that some of the quotes should be paraphrased. I understand it's up for interpretation on what should and shouldn't be rewritten, but using MOS:QUOTATIONS as a guide makes me think there should be more paraphrasing, and direct quotes should only be used from the participants themselves. While I understand the threat of your own POV when rewriting it, I think any editor's POV is going to come through in what they do and do not chose to include, including quotes. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've paraphrased some but not all. I get it, you would do it otherwise, I've read several of yours. But there are multiple paths to the same object, and I don't see policy or MOS against having quotes from secondary sources. Indeed, it seems routinely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to confirm the livability and safety of the redesigned command module over the length of a lunar mission, prove the reliability of the module's big rocket engine needed for entering and leaving lunar orbit, test the navigation and guidance system's ability to direct an orbital rendezvous, and execute a precise reentry and splashdown" As far as I can tell from the Tom Jones article, these objectives aren't directly quoted from any official document for the mission. This should either be put into new words or quoted from the source material.
I've paraphrased this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schirra stating it was "riding like a dream"" I think this is unnecessary, as it's not an opposing view from Schirra, just his term to describe the smooth ride
I cut this.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eisele called it "a real boot in the rear"" Similar to the previous quote, this is just an additional quote supporting the previous sentence, but it doesn't add to it. It's just Eiesele using a euphemism to describe the sudden jolt.
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to authors Francis French and Colin Burgess, "The redesigned Apollo spacecraft was better than anyone had dared to hope."" This secondary source material should be paraphrased or removed. If how it performed is going to be compared to the expectations, those should be compared (did they do extra tests, did expect backups not need to be used, etc.)
I think this is something that requires interpretation, and cannot be gotten from the primary source materials, these are experts in the field of Apollo, and their opinion is worth telling the reader about.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as later in the article there is discussion from primary sources (Gen Phillips, Kraft, etc.) that the mission conducted everything it should and outperformed expectations, I think this is redundant, as those quoted individuals down below are likely the "anyone" that French and Burgess are discussing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is more as a way of discussing the extensive testing that went on without having to catalogue it all, by way of a summary. I think it is better done as a quotation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I was not the happiest guy in town ... I was angry, and with good reason. The mission pushed us to the wall in terms of risk." While I like this quote's message, I think it should be rewritten per WP:EUPHEMISM, as phrases like "not the happiest guy in town" and "pushed us to the wall" are figures of speech.
I don't take the position that the guideline applies to quotations. I feel that the participants should be allowed to speak for themselves, in the terms they use, and the reader can judge for themselves. By the time Schirra wrote this, he knew the mutiny was a blotch on his record, and I'd rather not paraphrase away his defense to history.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that MOS guidelines don't necessarily apply to quotations, I think readers unfamiliar with American figures of speech might be left asking what it means to be pushed to the wall, and not understand what town Schirra is currently in. Why not just say that "Schirra later acknowledged that he had been angry during the mission because he felt they were accepting unnecessary risk." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened the quotation. I think the remaining idiom is clear from context and from the discussion of the launch and Schirra's concern. I'm inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jones noted, "This prelaunch dispute was the prelude to a tug of war over command decisions for the rest of the mission."" This Jones quote is directly lifted from the 2018 article, not any document or source from the mission itself.
It is a useful means of putting in context what the conflict was to be about, who was to call the shots. I don't think any primary source would really serve here. Schirra discusses it some in his book, but I think a more balanced approach is to quote a neutral party.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would either use the Schirra or Eisele quote to describe their frustration during the mutiny, but not both, as they share a message. My pick would be the Eiesele quote.
The Schirra quote is what he said from space. I think the reader should judge for themselves its appropriateness. Eisele's was written later and is more retrospective. They serve two different purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French/Burgess quote that starts with "When this point is considered..." says similar things to the previous Eisele and Schirra quotes. It should be paraphrased if its left in, but it's seems excessive since it says the same thing as the previous sentences about the crews frustration over perceived misprioritization by the ground personnel.
The quote provides a historical viewpoint, showing the reader how the incident has been judged by historians of the Apollo Program.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Slayton gave in to Schirra, "flight controllers were startled by Schirra’s abruptness."" I would just remove this quote, as it's a non-sequitur, stating that Slayton gave in and immediately jumping to flight controllers being surprised. If the info is left in, it should be paraphrased as it is not a quote from one of the flight controllers.
I've paraphrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Eisele quote right after the splashdown info is unnecessary, as there is already a description earlier in the text about the success of the mission, and there is a lot in the subsequent section. As it is Eisele's description of the mission after the fact, not something he said at the time, it's out of place recapping the mission right after the landing is described.
Good point. I've moved it to assessment.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paraphrase the McQuiston quote; it's a secondary source that describes the mission in Eisele's obituary
It seems more or less the same either way and McQuiston is probably not a space expert, so I've done this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really good info in the Jones quote that starts with "Three weeks after..." but it should be paraphrased rather than directly quoted, as it is a secondary source.
Assessment sections are to show how the subject of the article has been judged, and quotations are routinely used. In this case, the quote carries some factual information as well. I think I've made reasonable use of it. We are of course a tertiary source and secondary sources are freely made use of.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting with Gen Philips is made up entirely of quotes that all, more or less, describe Apollo 7 as being a success. The Phillips quote belongs in the previous paragraph describing the mission as a success. As much as Lovell benefited from the success of Apollo 7, his quote is out of place, as he just talks about it being a success without any mention of how its success allow Apollo 8 to conduct its ambitious mission. The Kranz quote should either be later in the article, as it is his retrospective on the entire mission, or removed. I can't tell from the referenced article when Kraft made his statement; if it was at the time it should be grouped with the Phillips quote, but if it is from his memoirs it should be later on in the section. It doesn't make sense to have quotes about Kraft and Kranz praising the crew years later and then jump straight to how they got in a lot of trouble with Kraft right after the mission.
I've rearranged this some and removed the "bitch circus" comment. I can dig deeper into Kraft's and Kranz's books if desired, but I think the reader should have the gist of the dispute as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work on this article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and kind words. I will keep your concerns in mind for the next Apollo article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you've been well. I'll do the image review.

In their respective Commons pages, the Source link for the following images seem to be dead. Is it possible to track down whether some of the source images may have been moved, or maybe some are available in Internet archives?

  • The Apollo 7 Prime Crew - GPN-2000-001160
  • Apollo 7 Launch - GPN-2000-001171
  • As7-3-1545
  • Apollo 7 and 8 Crew in the White House. - GPN-2000-001686
  • Apollo 7 photographed in flight by ALOTS (68-HC-641)
  • Saturn IB Second Stage with open LM adapter
  • Apollo 7 Florida
All done except the last, which I've swapped for another image.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons page for the following image doesn't use the Description/Date/Source/Author template that the rest of the images have. (I'm not sure whether this is an FAC requirement, but it would be nice to be consistent.)

  • As7-3-1545
That's done. That's everything I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the image captions look good. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks for the changes. Wow, Apollo 7 photographed in flight by ALOTS (68-HC-641) is an especially impressive shot. Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They did good work back then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aza24

[edit]
  • Will get to this in the next few days or so. Just glancing through the review thus far, I would agree that the TV picture is preferable to the rocket – otherwise such an argument could lead to every Apollo article with a rocket as the lead image, which is surely not ideal. Aza24 (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay, been getting distracted, comments below:
  • You have some dup links, including Launch Complex 34 which is not marked by the link checker because of a redirect
I think I've caught them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added to lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead image caption and lead itself mention how it's the first crewed American spacecraft broadcast – just checking, can this be changed to "crewed spacecraft" or did the Russians do this first or something?
The Russians had done it on Voskhod 2 in 1965, the mission that Leonov spacewalked on.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something "Block II" can link to?
I don't see anything. The Apollo command and service module discusses all this but not with a separate section.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused by calling Cunningham "a civilian" – does this just mean he didn't have prior astronaut experience? If so, having it before his birthdate is odd placement, almost makes it seem like he was a civilian when he was born, and well, everyone is
Clarified. He was not on active duty in the military like most astronauts of his group.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the triple apposition in "He learned later that the astronauts' supervisor, Director of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton, another of the Mercury Seven, who had been grounded for medical reasons, planned..." really works, or flows well. I would say that maybe something like "He learned later that the astronauts' supervisor, former Mercury Seven astronaut and Director of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton, planned" (is the "grounded for medical reasons" even necessary?) Happy to discuss this further
I've cleaned that up some. Introducing him as the astronauts' supervisor is needed to explain his discussions with Schirra in flight. I would keep the medical. I'd rather explain stuff to the reader than leave it unexplained.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that include the middle name or a middle initial for everyone but Ed Givens?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice to gloss Tom Jones
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure what "water egress training" is, is there something this can link to? Although I'm guessing it is some underwater simulation akin to pressure in space or something
I've explained it, finding no obvious link.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pad Leader" vs "pad leader" – not sure which is correct but both are used at the moment
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would think that the specialty of fiberglass may warrant linking
Done.--Wehwalt (talk)`
  • "Schirra wanted to name his ship "Phoenix". However, NASA refused him permission." seems redundant since you just said that NASA forbade this, perhaps rephrase? This may just be me so feel free to disagree
I've massaged that a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming you want to link "Cape Kennedy Air Force Station" in the text
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • missing a word in "would work, were concerned it might fire "?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, I've converted into miles as well as km.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the logic in using GMT for the landing but EST/UTC for take off? Would link GMT like the others as well
Changed to UTC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kranz can have just their last name used the second mention
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, I think I've caught everything. Thank you for the kind words and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. And thank you for your great work here (as always). Support - Aza24 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ajpolino

[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, I have no particular knowledge of the American space program – or indeed anyone's space program – so I'll be playing the part of "uneducated reader" and reviewing prose. With that in mind, thanks for the interesting read! Feel free to disregard some suggestions as uneducated:

  • Lead - "Determined there would be no repetition of the fire, the crew spent long periods of time monitoring the construction of their Apollo command and service modules (CSM)" - this sentence hits my ear odd, and I had to read it twice to understand your meaning. I might rephrase to "Fearing a repeat of the Apollo 1 fire, the crew..." or "Determined to prevent a repeat of the fire,...".
Done the second.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - "mission was a complete technical success" → "mission was a technical success" (I don't think readers will doubt the success' completeness)
The problem with that is the connotation of "technical" alone. For example, saying it was technically a success argues it really wasn't much of a success.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that readers would misconstrue "was a technical success" as "was technically a success". But as you wish. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - "In part because of... after the flight." has a lot of ideas in it and slows me down. I'd omit "which broke out in irritable words from the astronauts." Folks will get that information later.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - I think there's a bit too much information on the astronauts' backgrounds here. Is it relevant to Apollo 7 that Schirra was born in Hackensack in March? I'd trim out the birth and hometown stuff (interested readers can find that at the astronauts' articles) and just mention their experience that was relevant to selection.
I've cut out the hometowns but I think the dates of birth are relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding birthdates, I quite like how you set it up at Apollo 14 where you give the age at the time of flight. I realize that's basically the same information as birthdate, but not being much gifted with mental math, I find the age-at-the-time a bit easier to digest. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - "Cunningham, a civilian... joined the U.S. Navy in 1951..." - pardon my ignorance. I thought "civilian" meant not part of the armed forces? Is there a different meaning intended here? If so perhaps that should be clarified...
This was altered per Aza24's comments to make it clearer that he was a civilian at the time of Apollo 7. I did not think it was worth mentioning he was the second civilian in space, after Neil Armstrong, as that seemed name-dropping with no good reason for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - "He learned later that... if he gained medical clearance" - this is another choppy sentence that is challenging to parse. Perhaps you could cut the "He learned later that the astronaut's supervisor" part and just say "Deke Slayton, Directory of Flight Crew Operations and another of the Mercury Seven, planned, with Schirra's support, to command the mission if he gained medical clearance."
This has also been altered per Aza24's comments. I do consider it important to establish Slayton as the supervisor given his role in the flight.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is an easier read. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - "The mission would... the lunar missions." it's a bit weird to read "mission" twice in one sentence. Can you reword one?
Reworded.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - "to reduce and eliminate..." seems redundant?
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - Seems there's no need for a paragraph break between "prime crew of Apollo 10" and "Ronald E. Evans, John...".
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - I don't know what "Block II" means. Perhaps there's a wikilink you could add?
Aza24 made a similar comment so I've added some info.--Wehwalt (talk)`
The new context makes it readable even if I don't know the term (is it a generation of spacecraft? Block I came first, Block II is its successor?), so that's good.
  • Preparation - "Schirra had originally had" → "Schirra originally had"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "Once the simulators... 12 or 14 hours a day" - long sentence leaves it unclear if the support crews or the original crews are the ones working 12 or 14 hours a day. Perhaps you could split it into two sentences? Second sentence: "Even with the help of..., they often worked 12 to 14 hours a day."?
I've split it a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still find it confusing for the same reason. But perhaps that's just me. I'll leave it up to you.
I've taken another shot at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "They often had to... spacecraft testing" the last clause reads a bit choppy. Perhaps flip to "They often had to remain through the weekend to participate in training and spacecraft testing, rather than returning to their Houston homes"?
Again, done a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "... 2018 article on Apollo 7, Schirra..." → "... 2018 article, Schirra..."
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "One of the reasons the... this was one of the thing changed..." → "One reason the... this was changed..."
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "Fires were set aboard... pre-launch procedures." Can you split this into two sentences. I'd suggest "... within the CM at launch. This would be..."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "Guenter Wendt had been leader of the... → "Guenter Wendt had led..."
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "Wendt remained... Guenter went'" - could this be split into several sentences as well? It's a bit confusing. Perhaps "Wendt remained... Apollo program. When he departed... launch, Cunningham said, "I think Guenter's going." Eisele responded "Yes, I think Guenter went." Also I'll admit I wouldn't have caught the joke if I didn't read it above. Nobody likes an explained punchline, but I think you'd be forgiven if you pointed it out in a footnote. Your choice, of course.
Split and footnoted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardware - Could you move the wikilink for S-IVB up to the first (non-infobox) use? I had to scroll down to figure out it's a rocket stage (I think).
OK. I have, but I've kept the existing link since the new link is before the S-IVB has really been described to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardware - Could we get another wikilink for Saturn IB at the first use in the article (there's currently just one in the infobox)? By the time I got to this section, I wanted to know what it was without scrolling back up...
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardware - "The Saturn IB was used after the close of the Apollo Program to bring crews to Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project." sounds like a factoid unrelated to Apollo 7? Or I'm totally misunderstanding it. Could you clarify or remove?
Since Skylab and the ASTP used the Apollo CSM, I think it's relevant enough to include. We aren't really discussing the 1B a lot so I think it's not trying the reader's patience.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - SPS is used in the first sentence, but defined about six paragraphs later.
Massaged.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - no need to wikilink Launch Complex 34 again, you just told me about it 1.5 paragraphs above.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - "Apollo 7 was still equipped..." → "Apollo 7 was equipped"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - "enter space, and, as it proved, the only astronaut..." → "enter space, and the only astronaut..."
I prefer the existing phrasing because your suggestion makes it unclear if Schirra was the only one ever, or the only one as of Apollo7.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - "Although the astronauts were confident it would work, were concerned it might fire in an unexpected manner," - looks like there's a "they" missing in there?
That has been changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - you define the acronym "RCS" but then don't use it again.
Now used again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - Is there any more context you can give on what led to the day 8 complaints ("On Day 8, Eisele radioed...")? Did a test fail? Did this relate to too many things being scheduled (as the quote above hints)?
I've explained a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - same with the following day. Do we know what went wrong with the test to prompt Schirra's outburst?
Here too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both are much clearer!

Done. All-in-all, an interesting read. After a bit of prose cleanup, I hope to see it with a shiny bronze star. Ajpolino (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I've had another read through. I left a couple more comments above, but I'm happy to support this FAC regardless. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am looking at your further comments and will consider them and possibly post more/make changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Guerillero

[edit]
  • Note b should probably not have the brackets around here
Polished.--Wehwalt (talk)`
  • Can we get a better source for "From the Earth to the Moon"? The fios source gives me IMDB vibes
I didn't see anything wonderful on this, but it's really being used for very little, very basic information.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Log of Apollo 7 needs more information about the source
I am looking for a reliable source on this--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a legitimate documentary, and may be independently notable, produced in 1968. So as to be consistent with Flight of Apollo 7, produced by one of the networks, I've moved it to EL.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for the creator's name, the date, etc. in the citation but this works too. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kraft (2001) is unused
Removed, it had been used but the material was removed per a comment above.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • ibooks, inc is probably not the publisher of a 2003 edition of a book
The copyright page says in relevant part "An ibooks, inc. Book/All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever. Distributed by Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020/ibooks, inc./24 West 25th Street New York, NY 10010"--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is bizarre --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christine Toomey is redlinked
Unlinked.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The press kit is in both the bibliography and external links
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Doing now - Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Spotchecks not done – although I see no need to for a trusted editor[reply]

Biblio
  • I've updated the ISBNs myself in light on the odd ISBN conversation at FAC talk :)
  • There's some weirdness going on with Fallen Astronauts: Heroes Who Died Reaching for the Moon, there's no 2017 edition I suspect you meant the 2016 one, which definitely does exist. If so then "Bibson books" (which should be "Bison" books btw) is an imprint of the University of Nebraska Press so (and the In the Shadow of the Moon... is actually published by Bison too) I checked google books, amazon and world cat which just say University of Nebraska Press so I suspect that's the safer bet.
I think the 2003 edition? Changed in all cases to U of N Press and linked--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at my copy. The title page says "Springer/Published in association with Praxis Publishing Chichester, UK/Praxis" with "Springer" and "Praxis" being logos. The copyright page says "Copyright, 2006 Praxis Publishing Ltd." which I suspect is what I went by. I'll change it to Springer Publishing, and will go back to the other Apollo articles when I get a spare moment and change them.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the weirdness with some publishers above I checked the other books on Worldcat/googlebooks/amazon and found no issues
Refs
  • Just a minor thing, in your four National Air and Space Museum refs (4, 7, 9 & 86) you have "Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum" vs just "National Air and Space Museum" and "airandspace.si.edu" in one but not the others
Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • nasa.gov in 87 but NASA in 3?
Standardized too.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to have them. I think I've got them all above.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (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_7/archive1&oldid=993509547"