Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 13/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 3 January 2020 [1].

Apollo 13 edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Kees08 (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the only Apollo mission people remember that isn't Apollo 11. The film cemented people's interest in this one, and they come here to find out what "really happened". Many people, including participants at a well-attended peer review, have aided in this. For the nominators, we think it's worthy of the star.Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim edit

This excellent article has obviously been well picked over at PR, I made only a handful of notes, none critical. A few comments for your consideration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • combustible Teflon—I think this is a little misleading; although it's strictly true, Teflon is pretty difficult to get to burn except under extreme conditions, which, along with its physical properties, is probably why it was used on Apollo
    • Fair, there needs to be a few qualifiers, which happen later in the article, but which would be a little much for an intro. Kees08 (Talk) 15:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apollo 8 through 12—I might be wrong here, but I thought US usage in this idiom was Apollo 8 through to 12. Ignore if I've misremembered
  • But the accident could have damaged the SPS... But Apollo 13...—two consecutive sentences beginning with "But"
  • free return trajectory—should it be free-return?

Thanks for your review. Kees08 (Talk) 15:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources working, per the checker tool
  • Formats - the usual dreary nitpicks:
  • Ref 1: Who publishes N2YO.com?
    Not sure Kees08 (Talk) 16:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it seems that N2YO is the publisher - its a tracking station for orbiting material. So you're OK on this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24: pp. range would be clearer if you used the same hyphen-dash-hyphen format used elsewhere, e.g. refs 63, 127 etc
    Yes, fixed thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 61: Not clear if this is a range; if so, needs dash not hyphen
    Range. Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 100: Same problem
    Think I clarified this. Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 179: NYT should be italicized
    It is the wire service in this case, so think it is correct as-is. Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In sources, be consistent as between "New York" and "New York NY"; also between state names and abbreviations
    Believe I got all these Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lacking pub. locations: Kranz, and Lovell et al 2000
    Added Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: No issues that I can see. Meet FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

It's great to see this important article at FAC. However, it seems substantially less developed than other recent Apollo Program FACs. I've read through the first section and, to be really frank, it's simply not up to FA standard as it's needlessly vague and there seems to be a missing 'background' section. An over-arching comment from this section and skimming the later sections is that the article seems to assume that readers are very familiar with the Apollo Program. As such, this is a regretful oppose for now. I'd be pleased to continue the review when the below are addressed, and similar edits are made elsewhere to ensure that the article stands on its own feet.

  • "mission controllers worked feverishly to bring the crew home alive" - I'm not sure that "worked feverishly" is the appropriate term here: the various accounts I've read have emphasised that the work was extremely intensive, but also very well organised (hence why it's often held up as an excellent example of crisis management). This term suggests it was chaotic.
I've cut that word. I'll look through the sources to find a better one.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An investigative review board found fault with the testing of the oxygen tank and the fact that Teflon was placed inside it" - bit vague. Can you tweak this so it says what the review's conclusions where?
    Vague because it is in the introduction, for more detail the reader should read the section on it. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have severe space constraints in the lede. That is designed to give the reader a quick précis of what happened without having to go through the lengthy chain of events.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A formulation which is specific about the review's findings would be much superior (e.g., "An investigative review board concluded that the accident was caused by .... and recommended ... ). Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. See if it suits you. Really, it's a question of, what can we say in a thumbnail version that will make sense to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. I've slightly tweaked what looks like unclear wording here though. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should start with a background section which puts this mission in context (e.g. what was the Apollo Program? What stage of the program did this mission form part of? What was the program's record for safety/mechanical reliability like, what planning and preparations had been undertaken for the kind of contingency which occurred during this mission? etc). I'm very familiar with Apollo, but found jumping straight into the biographic details of the crew without any background to be disorientating. I note that the other Apollo FAs start with such a section, with Apollo 11#Background probably being a good model.
    I like the Apollo 15#Background section as a model since it bears more similarity than the Apollo 11 mission. The Apollo 11 mission background is highly detailed, and adding that much into this already lengthy article would be a bit much. I do not have the sources with me to write the section but can get to it next week. Kees08 (Talk) 03:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be interested in the end result, but given the complexity of this mission more is likely to be needed than a single para. Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm away from home right now but there are ample sources online, and I should get to this within a few days. I'm going to try to make it as short as possible and then we'll see if a little give and take is needed. I am not certain we need to go back to the beginning in the background section. More, "Now that they've landed on the Moon, what are they going to do?"--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I started something so we can begin iterating on it; feel free to change as needed. Kees08 (Talk) 03:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added something on the development of Mission Control that I think in general fulfills what Nick is asking for.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is OK, but there's a bit of an abrupt change in topic between the second and third paras. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rearranged the paragraphs and played with the text to make it less abrupt.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the topic of mechanical reliability, Chaikin notes various issues with earlier Apollos and records several astronauts noting the emphasis they placed on keeping missions to the shortest possible time to reduce the odds of a major fault cropping up - they were more than willing to take extreme risks (and they and their families prepared for the very real possibility that they would die on each mission), but it seems to have been accepted that there was always a high likelihood of something going seriously wrong and a lot of emphasis was placed on managing this issue which paid off spectacularly well in this mission, as well as in other missions.
I'm not sure what you are asking for here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Material noting that the Apollo missions were intrinsically risky enterprises. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on that to "Background".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "held a B.S. in mechanical engineering and an M.S. in aerospace science" - what's a BS and a MS in this context?
    Are there people that don't know what they are? We had a few comments about the article being too long and have been cutting down where we can, and I presume that at least most people know what those are. I don't think a wikilink is needed but added it anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The para starting with "According to the standard Apollo crew rotation" is a bit confusing, as it expresses who the crew were in the context of who they weren't (and, again, without any background on Apollo this makes for heavy going). I'd suggest flipping this around.
Let's see how this looks once a background section is in place. I'm trying to clear away a lot of this so we can focus on the larger items like that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it doesn't come as much from left field with the background section in place.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short note on the standard rotation. Kees08 (Talk) 00:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that topic, what was the role of the backup crew?
I've dropped a footnote to explain that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest consolidating these two notes - they cover the same topic, and having two notes for one sentence looks a bit odd. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The flight directors in Mission Control during Apollo had a one-sentence job description, "The flight director may take any actions necessary for crew safety and mission success." - what was the role of the flight director? Where they the boss of everything during their shift? Did they themselves have bosses during missions, or were they the final decision-maker?
This has been addressed in the Background section.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be covered later in the article, but the flight directors were supported by a large staff, with specialist teams of controllers and (in back rooms and/or on call) teams of subject matter experts also playing key roles. Given that the survival of the Apollo 13 crew was largely due to the excellent system in place to handle problems, this should be explained. From a quick skim, the Training and preparation section doesn't seem to cover how Mission Control also prepared for the mission.
I've added something on this in Background.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During Projects Mercury and Gemini" - note what these were.
    Would be a little weird to add in there, since we talk about the Gemini missions earlier in that section. Could maybe work in a background section. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest doing that. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We seem to be heading in the direction of adding background back to Kennedy so I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " James McDivitt believed meetings that required a member of the flight crew were being missed" - who was McDivitt? Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apollo program manager. It did not say in that area of the book so I had not included it, added it now. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt: From McDivitt's article (unsourced though) In August 1969, he became Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program and was the program manager for Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Wasn't the expansion of the support crew role decided in that time? I can double check the sources tomorrow. Kees08 (Talk) 05:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apollo 9, which McDivitt commanded, had a support crew, and he didn't become Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager until after Apollo 9. It seems to me that a lot of the concerns Nick is expressing re Mission Control background can be addressed through reference to Kranz's book. I think we can get by with a two paragraph background, one dealing with the Apollo Program with focus on the H missions, and one on the evolution of Mission Control.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right; good work and my mistake. Kees08 (Talk) 14:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments thus far, I will go through and respond or address as needed, percolating changes through the article as required. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also. If you want to act on the assumption that your comments will be addressed, and keep going, it might save time later.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll keep going (as I am confident the above will be resolved)

  • "The Saturn V used to carry Apollo 13 to the Moon" - note what a Saturn V was
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be worth noting in either the 'Launch vehicle and spacecraft' or the 'background' section that the CM and LM were essentially hand built and their production and testing was very closely supervised, including by the astronauts, due to the need for them to work almost perfectly in extreme conditions for a prolonged period. NASA went to great lengths to ensure they were as safe as they could be. How the bug which led to the disaster slipped through the testing could be noted here.
Isn't that explained in the investigation section? I'm not sure what you want here that wouldn't be a (lengthy) repetition of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and to spread the Apollo missions over a longer period of time" - why was this done? (for budgetary reasons, or was it a measure to improve safety and planning, or both?)
Looks like budget and I've added a bit there. This could easily be shortened to "budgetary reasons" if you think what I wrote is long.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para of the 'Training and preparation' could note that much of the training was devoted to simulating the responses to technical problems, including major malfunctions. It could also be noted here or in the Astronauts section that the three crew were used to solving difficult and dangerous technical problems under pressure given their previous roles as test pilots.
I've added a bit on simulations, which is meant to address the comment immediately below as well. I'm not sure we need to go into what test pilots do to that extent, there is a link, and I'm not sure we have that luxury of space.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The excellent article from IEEE notes that the astronauts' test pilot backgrounds were a key reason they survived (as it prepared them to do some very complicated things while under great pressure). Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. And agree with the excellence of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, the training the Mission Command team undertook could also be noted.
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good, but I'd suggest that the 'Training and preparation' section note the planning which went into preparing to use the LM as a lifeboat after a mission control simulation ended in failure - the IEEE article stresses that the development of checklists to make this work was hugely important as there was only a short time to save the crew after the explosion and the procedures couldn't have been developed in time without it. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on that.
  • "to setting up the ALSEP scientific instruments" - briefly note what these were
I've added a brief mention that they were to be emplaced and left on the Moon, though I honestly think it's clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this a bit - the name of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package seems helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Included.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Apollo 13 timeline.svg is excellent, but the details in it don't seem to be sourced anywhere. I'd suggest checking this against the NASA timeline or similar and adding a reference.
I used this reference (Orloff & Harland). There are a number of minor (at most two seconds) discrepancies and the fourth midcourse correction gives a larger discrepancy. I'd hate to lose this image.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is that is this is a SVG file, it's fairly easy to edit with Inkscape or similar. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the Mission Report, page 3-2, all the figures hew to that except MCC4. That should read "137:39:52". It looks like the the minute and second figures were copied from the figure immediately on the left. If that could be changed (I do not know how), then the entire thing could be sourced to the mission report.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a request on this at Commons' Graphic Lab, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed and I've added the source to the image page at Commons. So I think this is resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks great. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followed by a normal translunar injection " - not sure about the word 'normal' here given that a translunar injection is pretty unusual! 'Standard' perhaps?
I just cut the word "normal". There weren't any problems, and that really is all "normal" is intended to convey.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning with "After TLI, Swigert" is very long and complex and a single-sentence para. I'd suggest splitting this.
Split.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "hybrid trajectory"?
I've tried to say why they used it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thi looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including changing the attitude of the craft to facilitate photography of Comet Bennett" - is "altitude" the right word here? (should this be something like "orientation"?)
Done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attitude is the correct word but do not feel strongly about it. Should probably remain attitude though. Kees08 (Talk) 17:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I';ve restored "attitude".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • so did controllers supporting him in the "back room" - this is the first time the "back room" of experts is mentioned, and what it is isn't explained. As noted above, the article should explain this structure given that it was very important to the survival of the crew.
Wehwalt addressed this in the background section. Kees08 (Talk) 00:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mission rules required all three fuel cells to be working if a lunar landing was to be attempted" - this has already been noted
Gotten rid of.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a randomly-placed comment, Chaikin notes that the crews of Apollos 11 and 12 were told by the head of NASA that they would fly the next mission if they had to abort their missions (to encourage them to not take unnecessary risks), but this promise wasn't made to later crews - this might be worth noting.
I'm not certain it needs to be there. It's basically something that didn't happen and we lack space for all the things that did happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the spacecraft slowly drifted off course" - do we know why? (was this due to gasses venting from the damage, etc, or minor inaccuracies with the calculations of gravitational fields?)
It was due to the fact that the LM's sublimator, to cool the equipment, had a very slight propulsive effect that made no real difference in a normal mission, but did when no engine was being used for long periods. I'm not sure this needs to be conveyed to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • urinary tract infection is currently linked the second time it's referred to Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "President Nixon cancelled his appointments, phoned the astronauts' families, and drove to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, where Apollo's tracking and communications were coordinated" - did Nixon devote himself 100% to Apollo 13 as this suggests?
I don't think it suggests he devoted himself full-time to Apollo. He did go to Goddard, which he didn't have to do, he could have been briefed at the WH by Anders and Collins. There's a story here and I've looked at the Presidential Daily Diary here. It looks like he spent at least three hours on Apollo 13 on April 14. I could delete the "his" in "cancelled his appointments" if it helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd suggest doing that Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rescue received more public attention than most spaceflights to that point, other than the first Moon landing on Apollo 11" - should this be "The rescue received more public attention than any spaceflight other than the first Moon landing"? (the "most" doesn't seem to fit in with the "other than")
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With both SM oxygen tanks emptying, and with other damage to the SM, the mission had to be aborted" - as a fact, this is the third time this has been stated. However, am I right in thinking that the intent of it being noted in this section is that the review board endorsed the rule and decisions which led to the mission being aborted? If so, I'd suggest tweaking this accordingly.
Change to avoid mentioning the fuel cells.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the review or subsequent proceses cover the crisis management and, if so, make any findings on it?
Yes. I've added something there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been repeatedly called, "NASA's finest hour"" - can you say by whom? The three sources given here are all linked to NASA (two from NASA itself and one from Boeing), so attribution is significant.
This seems to be a pretty broadly used term, and was in the 1995 film in modified form. I haven't been able to find anything that really discusses the use of the phrase, and short of that, I don't see what we can do but repeat sources that use it. A google search showed the BBC using it, if it's a help. It doesn't seem exclusive to NASA.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a citation to Chaikin Kees08 (Talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can more be said on how historians and other experts regard this mission?
I've added something on historian views. Kees08, if you have Chaikin handy, could you add something appropriate from him?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He did not have a historical view of the mission in his book, but I added a note in about Nixon's advisers. Kees08 (Talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to adjust the 'Popular culture and media' section to be a thematic discussion of how this mission has been portrayed rather than a listing of portrayals?
We'd have to get that from somewhere or it would be WP:SYNTH. I'm not aware of a source that says how the pop cult depiction of Apollo 13 has been over time.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm a bit surprised that no-one has written a PhD or book on how the Apollo program has been portrayed in popular media though. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the management of Apollo 13 been used prominently as a case study of crisis management? The Australian PM recently cited in in a speech as being a good example for the public service to follow ([2]), though he seems to have been referring to the movie!
I see some crisis management simulations (Deloitte) and essays online. I don't see much by way of commentary on them, which I feel should be a prerequisite for use. At least when we mention a film, it's inherently notable and has an article (or in the case of a TV episode, the series does). Not as sure about these.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is sensible: random essays by consultant firms and things prime ministers remember from movies don't seem useful. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gene Kranz is linked three times, including twice in the body of the article
  • As a final comment, I think that the article has too many photos. They run down both sides of the screen at times. All the photos are great, but that's true of all articles on space missions and especially the Apollo Program. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should only cut back by a few. Materials on Apollo are traditionally well-illustrated, whether books or articles. The biggest thing now is the mission control additions. Kees08, can you start a framework and I'll add on to it?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've pruned the images modestly. I think we've covered or addressed everything to some extent except matters in which we've asked for clarification. Kees08, could you look it over and change anything you feel needs changing before we ask for a second look?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The photos look good now. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checked over it, changes look good to me. Kees08 (Talk) 00:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Think we are ready for you to take another look at this when you have time. Kees08 (Talk) 06:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'll have a proper read either tonight or tomorrow, and have struck the oppose on the basis of my loose monitoring of the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As some extra comments" (comments on responses to my comments are above)

  • "The general public had grown apathetic towards the space program and opposed spending on high-tech government programs" - when was this?
  • "The S-IC stage's engines were rated at 440,000 newtons (100,000 lbf) less total thrust than Apollo 12's, though they remained within specifications." - is this necessary? If so, the wording is slightly confusing - did the engines generate 440,000 Newtons, or was this the difference between what they generated and Apollo 12's? Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. I've tried to clear that up. Someone more technical than me might want to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've slowly read it through and the way it reads now seems more coherent, like it tells a story, in the framework of crewed space flight from 1961 to 1972. At least so it seems to me. I think it is considerably improved, so thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now all addressed. Thanks for engaging with them in a constructive and positive way. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for caring enough to stand up for what you knew needed to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most of my points were addressed at the PR, and the article has tightened since then. Just one point: in the Lead you don't need "(KSC)" as the abbreviation isn't used again until the body when it has the full term to explain it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7 edit

I looked at this one already at PR, but have an issue:

  • "Duke contracted rubella from one of his children." I don't think this is correct; he contracted it from the child of a friend. See the Charles Duke article for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This says otherwise. I gather this is from an interviiew with Duke. But how do we account for the contrary information, that I've seen in other sources as well?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut where he got it from.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the interview with Duke:
So about, I guess, 2 weeks or 3 weeks before flight, our son Tom was (let’s see now, that would be 1970)—he was 3. And he had a little friend named Paul House and—who was the son of some good friends of ours down in Houston. An architect. And so we were off for the weekend with the Houses. And sure enough, we came back a week later and Suzanne House called and said, “Paul has got the measles.” I said, “Oh Lord.” And anyway, I caught the measles from Paul, this little 3 year old.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added, though I've avoided the name drop. The person is likely still alive.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My only suggestion (and it is no more than that) is to move the Mission insignia and call signs section up to before the Launch vehicle and spacecraft section. This puts the naming in chronological order, and that way, they are explained before they appear in the narrative. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. Let me play around with the positioning of the mission insignia etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Wow, that is a lot of images:
  • The image is not detailed enough to really make out the story, though I can make out words such as the astronauts' names. It would be hard to say anyone's commercial interests are put at risk. Even if the newspaper was copyrighted, not all from that era were.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plaque doesn't contain any copyrightable text, but they were created by NASA (see Lunar plaque for details) so either way they are not copyrighted. They were also published before 1978 without a copyright notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The file needs to mention the copyright status of the plaque then (along with that of the photo). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like each image is pertinent to the section.
Is that huge gallery really necessary?
@Wehwalt: Kees08 (Talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather cut it back, say to six or eight, rather than eliminate it entirely. It is below the text of the article and doesn't interfere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only one ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note I made a request to fix all the broken links at Commons similar to these. Won't be able to automatically perform them all but should be able to get more than I could ever do on my own. Kees08 (Talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the review, sorry there were so many issues I thought I had gone through them all and must have misremembered. I believe I took care of everything except the gallery note, which Wehwalt may work on. Kees08 (Talk) 22:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz edit

Hello, Wehwalt and Kees08, I haven't seen the movie. My review is very much a layperson's. It's a mixture of MoSsy gnome stuff plus a few minor comments where I felt links and tiny expansions might be warranted. I did think of actioning some of the minor things myself but decided best all left to your call...

  • returned safely to Earth on April 17, 1970. - is repeat of year necessary here?
  • With the lunar landing cancelled, mission - canceled
  • An investigative review board found fault with the testing of the oxygen tank - add 'pre-flight' before testing (because the board did own tests)
Done,without the hyphen.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apollo 20 was cancelled - canceled
  • During John Glenn's flight in February - insert Mercury
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • have to fire him - I think the 'on the spot' is needed here
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • monitoring telemetry from the spacecraft - wlink telemetry
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apollo 9 commander James McDivitt believed meetings that required a member of the flight crew were being missed, so for Apollo a third crew of astronauts was added, known as the support crew. - from Apollo 7?
There was one for Apollo 1 and also for the planned subsequent flights pre-fire. I think "for Apollo" is fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apollo 9 commander James McDivitt - Reads oddly with "Apollo 9 commander leading" if first time there was a support crew was Apollo 7... perhaps 'James McDivitt , who later commanded Apollo 9, believed
This is fair enough. This was pre-fire, so McDivitt was to command the second Apollo mission at that moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • believed meetings that required a member of the flight crew were being missed - does this mean the meetings weren't held or a crew member was missing? Was the crew member not invited or did they not bother?
I've expanded this. It's because Apollo facilities were all over the place and the astronauts had to train, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plan was to devote the first of the two four-hour lunar surface EVAs to - spell out and wlink Extravehicular activity (EVA)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see. It's not linked in Apollo 14, either, which went there (more or less).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • deep into the lunar regolith - wlink regolith
    Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A United States flag was also taken, to be erected on the Moon's surface - wlink Lunar Flag Assembly at "erected"?
Done at "The structure to fly the flag"--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • integration into the Apollo 13 vehicle.[81][76] - ref order
Reversed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as Fra Mauro, to be reached..[85] - remove spare period
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swigert initially thought that a meteoroid might have struck the LM, but he and Lovell quickly realized there was no leak - does this allude to leak from any impact damage?
Yes. I think it's pretty clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • checked the status of the three fuel cells, and found that two of the three were dead. Mission rules forbade entering lunar orbit unless all three fuel cells were operational - reduce mention of "three"? eg found that two of the three were dead
Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedures for using the LM as lifeboat - 'a' lifeboat
Massaged away.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • crew was told that the S-IVB had impacted - move wlink up to here from below at Aftermath "vehicle's S-IVB (the Saturn V's third stage)"?
Done with some variation as I inserted the link on reference to the third stage.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • took their consoles for the PC+2 procedure - took 'to' their consoles?
I think this is OK in AmEng.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • light glinting off the many pieces of debris accompanying - no mention of any debris before?
I've added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • device as "the mailbox." The - move period to after quote marks
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • two astronauts for 45 hours on the moon was - Moon
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 05:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • since he had not been scheduled to walk on the moon - Moon
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 05:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Water condensed on the walls, though any condensation there may have been behind equipment panels[118] caused no problems - needs 'and' before caused?
I think we're OK on this. I'm reading "condensation there may have been being equipment panels" as the subject of that clause.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • there was great tension because of fear - insert "at Mission Control"?
Done, though I've recast the sentence a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odyssey regained radio contact and splashed down safely - ref 121 IEEE part3 gives weight to the next tension after contact regained... waiting to see if parachutes would deploy, worth adding?
I'm not sure it's necessary. We have to summarize somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presidential Medal of Freedom the Apollo 13 - add missing 'to'
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • President Nixon cancelled appointments - canceled
  • Beech Aircraft Company - wlink
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a report was written - this is not clear to me, does it mean the problem was documented?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to counteract pogo vibrations - oscillations?
Kees08 is better acquainted with such things than I, so I'll draw their attention to this.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "to counteract pogo", "to counteract pogo oscillations", and "to counteract vibrations caused by pogo" would all be appropriate, so I just picked one. Feel free to pick any other. Kees08 (Talk) 14:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Odyssey is currently on display - not meant to use "currently"?
I think if they moved it, there are enough interested editors that it would be updated.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milt Heflin - wlink (and authorlink)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nixon's advisers recommended cancelling the - canceling
  • two missions were cancelled - canceled
  • two missions were cancelled, meaning that the program ended with Apollo 17 - three canceled ie 18, 19 and 20 (20 already mentioned in Background) so 'two more missions'?
We refer to Apollo 20 so long before that I think "more" imposes on the reader's memory. I'd let it stand as is. The reader doesn't need Apollo 20 to understand the existing text.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emphasized by the mission's motto, Ex Luna, Scientia (From the Moon, Knowledge)" v. "The motto, Ex luna, scientia means "From the Moon, knowledge";" - consistent caps?
Made consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is now in the Capt. James A. Lovell Federal Healthcare Center - and 'it' is now
It's probably an ENGVAR thing, but it feels OK to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • saying it was "fictitious and in poor taste." - move period outside quotes
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 4 (248,577 mi)at 7:34 pm - add space before "at"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 5, Hans M. Mark - wlink
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, Lovell, Jim / Lovell, James - swap alpha order
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gallery, Swap orders to be chronological? eg "Mission Control celebrates the successful splashdown" before "The crew on board the USS Iwo Jima following splashdown"
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "Replica of the plaque with Swigert's name..." - should this be mentioned in prose, or explain plaque with wlink to Lunar plaque
Linked in caption.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "Lovell, Swigert, Haise, 12 days after their return." - remove period
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 05:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "Replica used during Apollo 13 filming" - insert Odyssey (or command module)?
Did this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very thorough review. We've done or responded to everything except I've left the "pogo" vibration vs. oscillation for Kees08.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...which he's now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic mostly, but is there a tool to detect British English? I found two more instances at a limited glance. Kees08 (Talk) 14:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I ran a script I found in my sidebar, thus, then reverted myself. It created an error and I don't agree with "improvization". But there may be something you can use there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for considering my comments above. Just a few last nitpicks and questions...

  • I can't see where we say they moved back through the transfer tunnel into the CM from the LM lifeboat
They were back and forth quite a bit. The CM was not uninhabitable and they used it for sleep, etc, plus they seemed to often be fetching items from the CM (food, LiOH canisters)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Review board" subhead - maybe add 'findings'
But it also covers the establishment of the review board.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 3 alts, intentional?
I see Kees08 has added some.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • New drink bags that were attached inside the helmets and sipped from as the astronauts walked on the Moon - because they didn't walk, maybe 'inside the helmets and to be sipped from'
Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nixon - is it worth noting (as in Apollo 11 with Borman) that Bill Anders was Nixon's appointed NASA liaison officer? (Ref 141 Nixon Foundation)
Anders had more of a connection with 11 as he was the backup CMP. I don't feel that he's worth mentioning, though he certainly briefed Nixon, watched the splashdown with him.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • service propulsion system - possible wlink?
I've linked and also capped to be consistent with other components of the Apollo CSM.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

some minor inconsistencies in units used, abbrevs, order, spelling

  • liquid "supply of 5 US gallons (19 l)" v. "was 0.2 liters of water per person"
I've flipped the first one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

distances - large are mostly kilometers (mi), except:

  • 180,000 nautical miles (210,000 mi; 330,000 km)
  • and 6.5 km (3.5 nmi)
  • 100 km (60 mi)
  • sank 10 kilometers to the bottom
The last two I've done. The first one was in the article when we started work and I am inclined to let it stand rather than deprive the reader of information. The second one is a sea distance and the use of nmi is proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

smaller -

  • "0.3 meters (a foot)" v. "holes 3.0 metres (10 ft) deep" v. "at least 5 centimetres (2 in)"
I felt "a foot" read better than saying "1 foot". I've gone to US spelling on the third one, so no need to change the second one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

times - most 24hr, except:

  • Earth at 7:21 pm EST
  • at 9 pm local time
  • 7:34 pm EST (00:34:13 UTC)
  • 02:13:00 PM EST (19:13:00 UTC) - PM?
I've lower cased the last one and stripped the leading zero. I think we are consistent in 24 hour time for UTC, which is conventional, and are not obliged to use 24 hour clock for Eastern time. I changed 9 to 9:00 and I don't see anything inconstant in taking it to seconds for something as exact as the timing of a rocket launch.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

other

  • consistent caps on the coloured teams "Gene Kranz, White team" v. "Kranz's White Team"
I've standardized with lower-case "team"s but could live with it the other way too if anyone wants to change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • tank caps eg "when Oxygen Tank 1 ran dry" I see when worded completely they are capped as a proper name but elsewhere tank not capped except this "oxygen in Tank 1 was consumed" - remove cap T on this one?
Yes, that is how we are trying to do it and I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • consistency in logical quotations - there are 8 occurrences of ." (eg when their lives were on the line." ) Leave it to you to decide where LQ needed.

I reckon that's it from me. Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted, those things are done. Thank you for going through with a fine-tooth comb. If I had been more careful, you would have had less to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I haven't been able to get back to this sooner (fires). I have much enjoyed this review. Thanks for the tweaks and I am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBSPing edit

I think I got most of the WP:NBSPs,[3] but please carefully check that I didn't break any files or refs. Space flight articles are NBSP-dense. Recently <ahem> a GOCE reviewer on a TFA criticized that we should also provide NBSPs on dates. Disagree, not going there. I didn't look at anything else in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If some GOCE type complains down the road that I didn't get them all, tell 'em you get what you pay for :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will indeed :) --Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Alan Shepard when he finally made it to Fra Mauro, "it's been a long way, but we're here". Unless there's something someone wants to insist upon, I think we're good to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I removed a few duplinks that were in close proximity to the initial links, but have left a few others that seemed to be spaced well apart, given it's a reasonably long article -- you might check for yourselves though and rationalise where you can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 3 January 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_13/archive1&oldid=933965216"