Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 14/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [1].

Apollo 14[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an Apollo mission perhaps most famous for featuring the second flight of Alan Shepard, and for Shepard sending two golf balls into flight. Yet much else went on, from a frustrated Stu Roosa trying again and again to dock two spacecraft to Ed Mitchell's ESP experiments. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from hawkeye7[edit]

Article looks in good shape. For the details about the software patch, I recommend Sunburst and Luminary by Don Eyles.

  • You talk about the CAPCOM and the flight directors, but the article would be improved if you said just a few choice words about what they do
CAPCOM was already in there, I've added language from A13 about the flight directors.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You introduce the abbreviation CSM before you define it
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Command Module and Lunar Module be linked?
Lunar module linked. Command Module just links to a section of Command and Service Module so no great need for one there since I've put in a link per your comment just above.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea who named the spacecraft or why?
Not sure who named the LM (I can guess) but I've added the others. I'll peruse Shepard's and Mitchell's books to see if they say anything as to whose idea it was.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does particle energy really need a link?
Nah.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The S-IVB was impacted into the Moon to calibrate the Apollo 12 seismometers, right?
I think that was done by the A12 ascent stage.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Passive Seismic Experiment (FSE)" should be PSE
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typos: "propellent" should be "propellant"
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • I'm not sure about "EVA" being abbreviated at first mention.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fra Mauro highlands". Should that be an upper case H?
Arguably, so I've been consistent and switched in all cases to Fra Mauro formation, which doesn't.
  • "He served as a CAPCOM". Could you check that link; and consider giving the job title in full and/or moving the later in line explanation to here.
Link altered (nice catch). I've given the title in full, but think it best to leave the job description where it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while flying his T-38 jet at a speed and altitude to simulate the speed at which the lunar surface would pass below the CSM". Suggest →'
  • "while flying his T-38 jet at a speed and altitude simulating the speed at which the lunar surface would pass below the CSM'.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crew movements were limited as much as possible at KSC and nearby areas". Do you mean 'to KSC ...'
I think what I have is more true to the original. The crew was asked to stay in the training areas and the flight line at Patrick AFB. It wasn't a restriction to the Center in so many words. There are instances in which the crew of later missions disregarded this, but this was the plan anyway.
  • "The internal stirring fans, with their unsealed motors, were removed, which meant the oxygen quantity gauge was no longer accurate. This required adding a third tank so that no tank would go below half full. The third tank was placed in Bay 1 of the SM, on the side opposite the other two, and was given a valve that could isolate it in an emergency, and allow it to feed the CM's environmental system only. The quantity probe in each tank was upgraded from aluminum to stainless steel." I am struggling with this. Eg: Why did removing the fans and motors effect the quantity gauge. Why are there two intervening sentences before the gauge is mentioned again? What was the effect of the gauge upgrade? How did adding a third tank prevent any tank from going below half full? How does this relate to the new inaccuracy of the gauge?
This was borrowed from the Apollo 13 article. I've cut some of it that may be too much information for the reader and focused on the essentials.
  • "ALSEP". In full at first mention.
OK.
  • "A similar experiment was successfully deployed, and the mortars launched, on Apollo 16." → 'by Apollo 14'.
No, it was 16. The one on 14 was never launched because they feared that dust would cover the LRRR laser reflector. Apollo 16 didn't deploy one of those, and they had learned from experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, thumb-fingers. What I meant to type was → 'by Apollo 16'?
The mortars were launched by ground control after the astronauts were home so it would be hard to say it was launched "by" A16. I'll rephrase.
  • "as of 2020 the return signal is only about 10 percent of what was expected"> I find this a little unclear. Do you mean 'as of 2020 the return signal has fallen about 10 percent of its original strength'?
I'm basically quoting the source here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, are you saying that you don't understand the source either?
I understand what they are saying but I'm going to look for a better source than CNN on this, that may state it more accurately. I expect what is meant that it was 10 percent of original strength, as you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After examining other sources, I'm going to cut this. The 10 percent is "in some cases", speaking of the five retroreflectors on the Moon. That may be TMI for the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission would take a faster trajectory to the Moon and make up the time in flight; just over two days after launch, the mission timers would be put ahead by 40 minutes and 3 seconds so that later events would take place at the times scheduled in the flight plan." Strongly suggest sentence break after "flight".
OK. I've played with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
  • "though they might have to initiate an abort manually". Maybe something like 'though if an abort became necessary, they would have initiate it manually'?
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of "Lunar surface operations" seems incongruously out of chronological order.
I think it's a good start to the section but I've massaged the rest to make it seem less incongruous.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Well, it's not a deal buster and I entirely understand why you like it.
  • "older than the volcanism observed". I don't think that volcanism was observed! You need to tweak this.
  • "but very rare to find on the Moon". →'but are very rarely found on the Moon'.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "Mobile Quarantine Facility". Why the upper case initial letters?
NASA equipment tends to take capital letters, i.e. Lunar Roving Vehicle.
  • "The oval insignia depicts the Earth and the Moon, and an astronaut pin drawn with a comet trail. → 'The mission insignia are an oval depicting the Earth and the Moon, and an astronaut pin drawn with a comet trail.'?
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I think I've either gotten or responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cracking read. Really good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting, but there are a couple of issues above which it would, IMO, be worth your looking at. I don't know how long it takes you, but your prose is great. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. This is my fourth Apollo mission written about so I'm getting used to the terminology, which helps. I've made further edits as you suggested and will look into that 2020 LRRR situation. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "It was the last of the "H missions," targeted landings with two-day stays on the Moon" What does "targeted" mean here? Weren't all moon landings targeted?
Explained.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liftoff was delayed forty minutes and two seconds, due to launch site weather restrictions, the first such delay for an Apollo mission." I do not think this is important enough for the lead.
Perhaps the mere fact of the delay, so I've cut a lot of it and left the bare fact.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following the abort of Apollo 13". I would take abort to mean cancellation. I think failure would be a better word.
OK. It's an option.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "served as a fighter pilot in the waning days of the Korean War" Are you sure? I think it was after the war ended.
The source says "He then completed his flight training at Hutchinson, Kansas in July 1954, and was shipped out to Okinawa in the waning days of the Korean War, where he flew the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior from aircraft carriers with Patrol Squadron 29, even being shot at on one occasion." Since the date seems a little late, after the armistice, I will rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[Bruce McCandless II|Bruce McCandless, II]]. Why the comma? It looks like a separate person called II.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission would take a faster trajectory to the Moon and make up the time in flight." Faster than what?
The flight plan. Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "9 kg of which are in one rock (sample 14321)" and "In January 2019 research showed that Big Bertha, a 19.837 pound rock" You state in the picture caption that they are the same rock, but not in the text which uses different units in each case. The first phrase is in a quote so you cannot give a conversion, but the second one is the only case I can see where you do not give a conversion to kg.
Good points. I've tried to integrate the text a bit better there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link "plane change".
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for the review and the kind words. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 16:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Experienced FA user so spot checks have not been done.
Biblio

  • For consistency I would repeat the location for Apollo 14 Press kit ref
  • Why is NASA spelled out for ref Summary report but not for the first two? Would pick one way and standardize
  • I see that Summary report has a "(Report)" – would this be appropriate for the Mission Report as well?
    • It doesn't seem necessary as they are labeled as reports in their titles, so I've changed the summary report formatting to avoid.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused about the formatting for Brzostowski, its different than all the others (looks like its not in a template). The media type is unclear as well – is there an identifier that could be used here... ISBN, OCLC, doi, ISSN, url?
We don't seem to use it so I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • location for Arizona university? I assumed at first it wasn't there since the location is obvious but since you include a location for Chicago Review press, one here would make sense
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

  • Ref 24 shouldn't be in all caps even if in original publication, says that somewhere in the MOS...
Another ref substituted.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two astronomy.com refs are formatted differently (refs 79 & 98)
Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability looks great and no harv refs errors Aza24 (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thanks for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 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_14/archive1&oldid=982316078"