Talk:Saturn V/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 12:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review this article.

@Amitchell125: Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 19:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: @Amitchell125: Thanks, Somya see my comt on your talk page. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

I found the article an interesting and detailed read, and I'm in awe of all the work done so far on it.

In the assessment, I'm starting off with links to other articles, as it gets me to read through the whole thing carefully. Other general issues about the article will follow, then I'll deal with each section (prose first, then any citation issues, then anything else). Here we go...

Links

• Generally, there are multiple instances where links are duplicated, e.g. Skylab—I won't list them all here. See MOS:REPEATLINK for where duplicate links are ok. I'd like the MOS to be adhered to, which means combing through and and removing links. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Y

Not done (e.g. F-1 is still linked many times in the article). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Individual links

Lead section A couple of instances of multiple consecutive links (human-rated super heavy-lift launch vehicle; three-stage liquid-propellant expendable rocket) (MOS:BLUESEA). Link propellant; Saturn family of rockets, not 'Saturn family'. Consider linking Kennedy Space Center, Florida with a single link, and unlink Florida.  Done --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 1 History 'Main article: Space Race' – as the History section of this article is not a summary of Space Race, it seems that this is the wrong template to use (see Wikipedia:Hatnote#"Main article"). I would use 'See also' instead. Replace link to Vanguard with link to Vanguard missiles (Vanguard (rocket)). Link the next planet after Jupiter (Saturn); orbit; mother ship; NASA Exceptional Service Medal; NASA Distinguished Service Medal. Rename the link C-3 (to 'Saturn C-3' rocket or similar). Link F-1 engines and J-2 engine (and unlink if links occur further down in the article). I believe Instrument Unit should be spelt 'Instrument unit' throughout.  Done --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 2 Technology Why is rocket engine linked so far down in the article? Link drag; cryogenic (Cryogenics#Fuels); dry weight; bulkhead (presumably Bulkhead (partition)); velocity; range safety. The link attitude does not link where you would expect it to, I can’t see any problem with just linking to altitude.  Done --Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 14:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 3 Comparisons Link thrust-to-weight ratio. ... Project Gemini's Titan II GLV… - can the links be moved apart? Consider ‘Titan II GLV, the launch system used by Project Gemini, NASA's second human spaceflight program. Similarly, SpaceX Falcon Heavy could be separated (e.g. by saying the Falcon Heavy vehicle, manufactured by SpaceX). Not done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)  Done Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Link momentum and efficiency (in the table).  Done --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 4 Assembly Amend Marion Power Shovel to Marion Power Shovel Company.  Done --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 5 Lunar mission launch sequence Split the links Johnson Space Center and Mission Control (e.g. by saying ...Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center…). Link parking orbit; TNT; sound barrier; Atlantic Ocean; center of gravity; longitudinal; interior structure of the Moon (Internal structure of the Moon); gravitational perturbations (Perturbation (astronomy)). Link sensors; relative velocity. Link condensation clouds (to Condensation cloud) and correct the link in the caption. Amend Newton's second law to 'Newton's second law of motion'. maximum dynamic pressure (max q). - text in brackets is not the same thing.  Not done Max Q means maximum dynamic pressure. Unlink equator (common term).  Done --Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC) 8 Cost   R&D should be written in full. Link Vietnam War.  Done --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 9 Saturn V vehicles and launches Consider making U.S. Space & Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama into a single link. Not done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)  Done Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Link Trans-lunar injection (note hyphen); Apollo command and service module. Amend LM to Lunar Module (LM) and link.  Done --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 10 Proposed successors Unlink planet (common term). Replace link for interplanetary with (Interplanetary spaceflight). Link combustion chamber.  Done --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 11 Saturn V displays Unlink Washington, D.C. (see MOS:OL).  Done --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 15 References Link Jacobsen, Annie (Annie Jacobsen) and Seamans Jr, Robert. C. (Robert Seamans}.  Done Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 15:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Units of measurement used in the article

Hello The4lines: Looking at the hundreds of units scattered throughout the article, it's noticeable that the Manual of Style guidelines are not being consistently followed. The GA criteria don't mention the issue specifically ("spelling and grammar are correct"?), but to take the article past GA, work would definitely need to be done on them (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Units of measurement). Do you want to tackle them? If not, that's OK, I'll just mention the actual errors. If you're happy to get the units sorted, I am too. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Since Saturn V is a scientific article, I have put SI units first, despite having strong ties with the US, where foot-pounds are used. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• (this edit has now been reverted by Soumya-897) Amitchell125 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amitchell125: Yeah, If you mention the errors I will be happy to fix them. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 15:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• In the infobox, consider replacing 263 seconds (2.58 km/s) sea level with '2.58 km/s sea level'. As impulse equals change in momentum (i.e. change in (mass x velocity)), specific impulse is change in momentum divided by mass, and so has the units of velocity, e.g. km/s. The alternative unit given—s—while valid, is not needed here, as imo it would be confusing to a non-physicist to have two different-looking units for the same quantity. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per rv

OK, as my point was mostly to do with having two values, consider removing the metric one. it's not rocket science. :) Amitchell125 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• The use of miles and nautical miles doesn't seem to be applied in a consistent way in the text. I know the nautical mile is an accepted US unit for space navigation, but could the nmi be converted to miles for the sake of being consistent? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done

• Metric tons are called 'tonnes', and confuse everyone. I would replace the examples where metric ton (or t) appears with kg, as occurs elsewhere in the article, e.g. replace 131 metric tons with '131,000 kg'. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done

• ...total impulse of 11,193,000 pounds (5,077,000 kg), versus 470,400 pounds (213,400 kg) for the Apollo LES. - the metric units of impulse are Newton-seconds (Ns), not kg. I tried to check ref 34 (Duncan) to see what the citation said, but the link is dead, so this needs to be fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Kinda done, removed that part do to lack of sources.

• Weight v. mass: Although the two terms are often considered interchangeable, it is mass that is measured in pounds/kg, not weight, which is a force. I would replace weight with 'mass' when the units are in pounds/kg, but what do you think? Amitchell125 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done

• ... 2 kilotons of TNT (8.4 TJ) - TJ is read terajoules, an uncommon unit to most readers. Consider replacing with terajoule (linked to 'Tera-) or 8 400 000 000 000 J. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done

Italics

1 History Sputnik 1 is in italics. MOS:ITALIC: "Italics should be used for... ...Spacecraft (including fictional): the Space Shuttle Challenger, Gaia satellite...". Not done? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Another rv by him Now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC) ...was named Saturn… - Saturn in this case is in italics, as here it is a term.  Done 2 Technology Not critical, but check with MOS:EMPHASIS, which comments on the use of italics for emphasising words (in this case mass and volume)  Done 3 Comparisons Put Buran in italics throughout (including the title of this sub-section), as the spacecraft's name coincides with that of the mission, see MOS:ITALICS.  Done Not done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC) It was  Done but he rv it Buran spacecraft now in italics. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC) 5 Lunar mission launch sequence (see Apollo abort modes for more information about the various abort modes that could have been used during a launch) looks as if it's in the wrong place.  Done 7 Proposed post-Apollo developments ...the Soviet Lunokhod. - amend to 'the Soviet rovers Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2, with ‘the vehicle names in italics, as they coincide with the series name. ? don't know what you mean "Do not italicize a mission, series, or class except where it coincides with a craft's name: the Eagle was the Apollo 11 lunar lander; Voyager 2 was launched as part of the Voyager program." (MOS:ITALIC again). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC) I've sorted it—feel free to revert if you want. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC) More comments to follow (section by section). Amitchell125 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

It's hard to spot stuff in some these sources, so please tell me when you think I've made an error—it will have been done in good faith. Reference 3 (sp4206) doesn’t contain any information connected with the infobox, and so needs to be replaced.  Done Empty mass 29,700 lb (third stage) – I couldn't find the value in Ref 4 (Ground Ignition Weights).  Done Ref 5 ( Alternatives for...) – why are there four pages cited in Ref 5 for a single value of 90nmi? Also, imo Ref 5 is not needed as it accompanies Ref 6 (Stafford), which is fine. ? I don't get it? The value 140,000 mt occurs several times in Ref 4 (now changed, was Ref 5), but it only needs to be cited once, e.g. on page 4. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Ah  Fixed Ref 7 (Infographic) doesn’t mention any specific dates.  Done Not done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)  Fixed Ditto Ref 8 which is identical to Ref 7.  Fixed More to follow... Amitchell125 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sections

1 History

• Ref 11 (Neufeld) says 100, not 700 people, were sent to the US, and ref 14 (NASA) says 120 were. I'm not sure why the numbers differ.

 Fixed

Sorry, still can't see a citation for '700'. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• ...a program authorized by President Truman to harvest Germany's rocket expertise to give the US an advantage in the Cold War through the development of intermediate-range (IRBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). needs a citation.

 Fixed

• Ref 13 (IEEE) is an open wiki (see WP:SPS), its material cannot be verified.

 Fixed

• Ref 14 (NASA) appears to disagree with the text in the article, as it says von Braun was transferred off V2 rocket work in 1950.

 Fixed

• Ref 15 (BBC) doesn’t mention von Braun’s “numerous articles”, etc.

 Fixed

• ...January 1958… - needs a citation, as Ref 20 (NASA) doesn’t mention this date.

 Fixed

To editor The4lines: It's beginning to look as if the references need to be carefully checked to ensure the text can be verified (see WP:VERIFY). If a few more sections come up with similar problems about the quality of their references, the article will be close to being failed. Do you want to put the review on hold to give yourself time to check things over, before I continue? Amitchell125 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

To editor Amitchell125: No, keep going, if there is more problems I will ask it to be placed on hold.Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 19:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

To editor The4lines: I'll not stop. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

1 History 1.1 Saturn development

• The subtitles (1.1.1 and 1.1.2) are not really needed here, I would remove them.

 Done

And someone reverted you! Maybe leave out C-1-C4 and C5 completely (it's what I meant in the first place).

 Done

Amitchell125 (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• The current subsection on C1-C4 could be made into a single paragraph (removing a single-sentence paragraph in the process) and several of the small paragraphs in the C5 subsection could also be combined (see MOS:PARA for where I am coming from).

 Done

• … with at least four or five launches needed for a single lunar mission. - Ref 25 (Benson etc) states “...and recommended an earth-orbital rendezvous using two or three Saturn C-3s.”. Not sure why there appears to be a discrepancy

 Done

• Issues such as type of fuel injections, the amount of fuel needed for the trip, and rocket manufacturing processes were resolved. Ref 29 (Boeing) doesn’t mention the resolution of any issues, it looks like a citation is needed.

Removed

• The date 10 January 1962 appears on p. 106, not pp. 59-61.

 Done

• Bilstein’s book is listed five times in the References section, but the refs, apart from 19 and 27, are all formatted with a slightly different citation style. According to WP:CITEVAR, it’s acceptable to “(impose) one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles.”, so I would amend the citations here to make them look consistent. However, it's not, as far as I can tell, a requirement for GA.
• Ref 27 (Bilstein) appears to have the wrong publication year.

 Done

• Ref 19 (Bilstein) has no page number(s).
• Ref 29 (Boeing) does not mention the date stated in the article (By 1962...).

 Done

1 History 1.2 Selection for Apollo lunar landing

• ... Earth orbit rendezvous (EOR), direct ascent, and lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR). - consider rearranging this list so that it has the same order as the descriptions that follow.

 Not done No longer in the article.

• Bilstein refers to Low and Houbolt on p. 63, so the first ref in the 2nd paragraph should cite p. 63, not pp. 59-61.
• The ref following this (verifying the date of 7 November) should cite p. 68, not pp. 59-61.

• During his tenure he was awarded the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. - it seems not to be cited.

Removed

Next section on its way. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

2 Technology

• The three stages are illustrated with a mixture of photographs and illustrations, but imo it would be better to only use the NASA illustrations of each stage (shown here).

 Not done No longer in the article

• The second sentence lacks a citation.
• Consider adding a link for ref 34 (Saturn V Payload Planners Guide, November 1965) (https://archive.org/details/SaturnVPayloadPlannersGuide/mode/2up).

 Done

• ...sent up to 107,100 lb (48,600 kg) spacecraft to the Moon – Ref 3 (Ground Ignition Weights) doesn’t appear to state this mass. Is the value correct?
• ... taller than the Statue of Liberty… - requires a citation.

 Done

• Ref 36 (Duncan) not found.
• ...although numerous major systems, including propulsion, were designed by subcontractors. - requires a citation.
• Ref 38 (SP 4206) is Bilstein, and so should be cited in the same way as the other Bilstein references. The link given does not appear to mention the S-IVB-200 or the S-IVB-500, so a page number from Bilstein is needed for the text to be verified.
• The list of materials given is incomplete (even ref 39 (Streigel) gives other materials). It might be better to only list aluminum as the primary one.

Time to stop

Hello The4lines, it's becoming clear to me that the main issue with the article is one of verifiability, as I'm finding multiple problems when checking out the references. As it's one of the six GA criteria and is a long way from being met, I'm going to stop the review at this point and fail the article. Before re-nominating, you need to plough through each reference, as I have been doing, to check they verify the text, and to check all the text is verified. The job is too large for me as a reviewer to do for you. Of course, please feel free to finish addressing the comments I have already made.

Good luck! Amitchell125 (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: Ok, I will fix it up, once I do that can we start where we left off? Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@The4lines: It's an option I'm willing to seriously consider, as I have read up on the topic already. Renominate the article once it's ready, and feel free to ping me before then if you have a query you think I can help with. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)