Wikipedia:Peer review/Project A119/archive1

Project A119

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated this for FA status a couple months ago. I wasn't a major contributor then, I am now. Boundarylayer is also interested; we want to get it to FA status.

Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 19:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. I will do that next, but it would be grand if folks would remember to do it themselves. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I thought the bot would automatically index it. This is my first peer review, so do tell me if I'm doing anything wrong. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ... no one seems to be aware of the FAC sidebar template, so I spread the message as much as I can. I will weigh in to review when I find time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

Hi, not sure who to ping so I will just leave this as general comments. I am not an expert in military history, so consider this a non-expert review. I will look at this as if it was an FAC. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Lede

"The project was never carried out, being cancelled primarily out of a fear of a negative public reaction, with the potential militarization of space that it would also have signified, and because a Moon landing would undoubtedly be a more popular achievement in the eyes of the American and international public alike." This run-on sentence should be divided.
Done. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A similar project by the Soviet Union" Do we know the name of the project, and maybe a wikilink?
Done - Project E-4 doesn't have its own page. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The project documents remained secret for nearly 45 years, and despite Reiffel's revelations" If Reiffel revealed the project in 2000, the documents would only be secret for 20 years? I feel like something is missing in this explanation.
It's calculating the 45 years since the project was first made. From 1958-2000, the project was secret, so that's almost 45 years. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Z1720 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"has been dubbed the "Sputnik crisis"" Who dubbed it the crisis? Also, this should be past-tense as we are not currently experiencing this crisis.
Done changed to past tense. It's wikilinked, though, so anyone can click to see who dubbed it (mainly the media). I've added the media, though. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project

"January 1959, seemingly out of fear of negative public reaction" Why seemingly? Do sources state why the project was cancelled, or is it speculation?
I couldn't find anything in the sources about that, so I've replaced it with the reasons in the sources. The sources say Reiffel said this, and that the USAF declined to comment, so yes, this is likely speculation, as is the case with many black projects. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Evidence of the Soviet project" should be part of the "Project" section, as it was not part of A119. Rather, it should probably get its own section.
Done Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences

"the life of Carl Sagan, for a biography." Remove that comma
Done Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and his statements were later widely reported in the media" Remove later
Done Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The images in this section are causing MOS:SANDWICH
Done Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explosions in lunar science

I am confused why this section is there. Is this trying to analyse what would have happened if the project continued? What the research in A119 discovered? Something else?
It's there because a non-nuclear crash did the same thing that A119 was supposed to do, albeit without the grandeur of a nuclear weapon. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So are these non-nuclear crashes part of the project, or are they a consequence of the project, or something else? It feels like it is in the wrong spot. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A119 wasn't supposed to just scare people, it was also supposed to provide info about the lunar surface. With LCROSS, readers can find out about what did happen when something crashed into the moon. Would it be better for it to be condensed into a see also section? Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be explicitly clear why this section is in the article, and how it relates to A119. Make the connects to A119 explicit and remove any unnecessary prose. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I am concerned about the lack of references in this article. Are you sure you have used all available resources? Google Scholar, archive.org, WP:LIBRARY, and your local library are excellent places to find sources.
Checked Google Scholar, archive.org, nothing new there. My library books are due next week, so I'll see if there are any books about A119. This is a black project, so there probably won't be, though. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the following changes to the article. Please revert if they are not useful:
- Added Template:Use American English
- Added non-breaking spaces. See MOS:NBSP. Additional info: This is not necessary for an article to be an FA, but I think it's helpful. Z1720 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will address the remaining issues tomorrow. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to one. Z1720 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, responded and fixed. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, sorry for the wait, I've been busy lately. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Real life is more important than Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I've made it more concise. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thanoscar21, it has been over a month since someone has commented on this PR. Are you interested in keeping this open? Z1720 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720, yes, I am interesting in continuing to improve the article. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; I just wanted to make sure this wasn't abandoned. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanoscar21 It's been another month and there still haven't been any comments. Sometimes opening a new PR can generate more interest. I also suggest consulting Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review and contacting the MiltHist coordinators: since this article was promoted to A-class in 2011, they might be able to arrange a re-review of its status (which will generate feedback on how to improve and get this to FA status.) Can we close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, all right then. I'll go ahead and ask the MilHist coordinators. Thanks for your time, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 20:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]