Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SA-500D/1

SA-500D[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: kept

Myself and other members of WikiProject Spaceflight, including the editor who nominated this article for GA status, have expressed concerns regarding the thoroughness and leniency of the original assessment. It is requested that another review be conducted, with emphasis on areas where the article does not quite meet the criteria, hopefully allowing improvements to be made without the need to delist. --G W… 08:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made prior to 08:47 on 27 February 2011 copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight:

Could somebody please have a look at SA-500D. It has just been listed as a GA, however I believe the assessment was inadequately thorough and lenient. I would appreciate a second opinion before requesting a reassessment. --G W… 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would certainly agree that the article seems rather brief in sections that should be greatly expanded, such as the Configurations section of the article. Many items are left unsourced as well; whether this is due to improper and unclear placement of the citations in the article or supposition, I am unsure. However, it is decently written in a technical writing style, without dramatization, it does seem to at least mention most aspects of the facility (I am not personally familiar with it though), and it does include a fair number of relevant pictures and a video, even if not directly related to the nearby article section. Nonetheless, it still seems to suit the criteria better as a B-class, rather than a GA-class article. --Xession (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I was surprised to not receive any criticism before the article got the GA stamp. I appreciate your constructive criticism that I might improve the article. I had essentially reached the end of my independent improvement process.

Xsession, could you please {{fact}} tag what looks unreferenced to you? I'll be happy to fill in any blanks.

What ought we do to expand the Configurations section? The original intent was to provide the context for SA-500D. In fact, that section had been part of the lede previously, specifically because it was there for establishing content. I have thought to write articles for each of the other configurations, but time being what it is... -- ke4roh (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue regarding citations really seems to be mostly placement of them. For instance, in the Configurations section, only the first bullet-point is referenced; now, I'm assuming here, but it seems that the rest of that information probably came from the same book, and as such, the entire section could be cited to that book by moving the reference to just below the text. As for expanding it, I don't own the referenced book, and don't know if you do either, but it seems there should be more to say about each model. Maybe there isn't enough information about them that is notable enough for a separate article, but this article would be a great location for the information if it can be found. Again, it is certainly at least a B-class article; don't get the impression I'm dogging it for being poor quality, because its definitely on the right track. Happy editing! --Xession (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. What else does it need besides what I did today? -- ke4roh (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed my clear concern right out there although even I had something left in my heart. I think that something is the problem. Even I WOULD HELP IN THE REASSESSMENT OF THE PAGE.thanks. Wrote in A friendly foRmat don't mind.--Ankit Maity 08:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. I'd already expressed my concerns on the last reviewer's talkpage (User talk:Ankit Maity), as I don't beleive that the WP:GAN review was carried out correctly, it was at most a marginal GA; and I was considering opening a WP:GAR myself. Pyrotec (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments[edit]

I tend to do the WP:Lead last and will do so here.

Ground test configurations -

1st para says "five models" and 2nd para says "five pre-flight configurations", are these the same thing? Perhaps they are as the following paragraphs list four other "Other ground configurations". Note: It might be helpful to add a "lk-on" on those thrust units.

I standardized the wording a bit. How's that? -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development of the test article -

The first sentence of this section duplicates the last sentence of the previous section - are both needed?

Ah. That was hard to see in the editor with references spelled out. I took out the second one. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the grammar of the first paragraph. Is the Saturn V three stages or four (or even five): it seems to be stages 1 to 3, plus an instrument unit, with the Apollo module on top (since the SA-500D was a full stack "less the Apollo module on top")?

Yes, I tried to clarify. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are "jolts" and "shimmies" technical terms, and do they need wikilinks and/or explanations?

I removed that bit. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Third stage -

I don't like all these undefined bits are jargon even if they are wikilinked. OK, "CM", "SM", "LES" and "SLA" are wikilinked so I know what they are, and the third stage is a "S-IVB-D", but what is a "S-IB-D/F"?

I suppose I could leave the CM, SM, and LES off entirely. It's all part of the Apollo module which technically wasn't part of SA-500D. They will only come up again at the bottom when addressing the parts on display. I added a passage about the numbering schemes and spelled out the acronyms. They are all pointed out in the picture, for what that's worth. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Instrument Unit -

What's an IU ring its not defined? It seems, to be an object or "thing" can an object/thing have responsiblies?

Defined. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's an S-IU-200D/500D?

Clarified. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....to be continued, later. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pyrotec! Your comments have been most helpful. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its looking much better. I'll just keep adding comments and look at the "corrective" actions at the end if that is OK? I suspect that they will all be what is needed to bring the article up to standard. Pyrotec (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks again for the help! -- ke4roh (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these assessments are sometimes given too casually, and I have a couple of accuracy/completeness concerns:

The term "Apollo module" was used inappropriately; such a term was never used by NASA engineering and seems to reflect a lack of knowledge about the Apollo spacecraft, which consisted of two separate vehicles: the Command/Service Module, and the Lunar Module. I've fixed the references by changing "Apollo module" to "Apollo spacecraft".
Corrective action: It isn't clear from the information given in this article (or the sources cited), whether or not the BP-27 accounted for the Lunar Module mass (which would have been necessary for an accurate dynamic test.) Unfortunately there don't seem to be any pictures available of exactly what BP-27 looked like. The LM was usually simulated by a LM Test Article (LTA) (such as that carried on Apollo 6 and Apollo 8), which would have been a separate piece of hardware carried inside the SLA. Other than this, it qualifies as at least B class. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where information on which SLA was used for dynamic testing might be hiding? I was only barely able to piece together that BP-27 was used for the dynamic tests, and BP-27 doesn't appear to contain an SLA.[1] I asked the USSRC curator which SLA is in the horizontal stack, and he wasn't sure. BP-9, the other Apollo boilerplate designated for dynamic testing was launched on SA-10 July 30, 1965 and what remained burned up on reentry in 1969, so it was not available for dynamic testing in 1966. While I am certain (because the tests wouldn't make sense otherwise) that some object accounted for the mass of the LM and SLA, it would seem that folks of the day didn't have much to say about what was on top of the Saturn V. (I could go to MSFC and dig up test reports, I suppose, but that probably qualifies as original research. I also can't say that sources are mum on which parts were used for testing, because I haven't seen every source. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I found a source that put LTA-2 on SA-500D and put that in the article. I will also add some more information about the dynamic testing from the test plan and see if I can find some usable info about BP-27 being used for dynamic testing in Houston prior to shipment to Huntsville. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article appears to be massively improved and I propose to close this as kept if there are no further comments in the next five days. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Closed as keep. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]