Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alfred Worden/archive1

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2020 [1].

---

Alfred Worden

Al Worden was the command module pilot of Apollo 15. That was only a small part of a life that included being a test pilot, scientist, engineer, businessman, and public speaker, promoting the space program and STEM education. His 88 years left us the richer; hopefully we do not squander what he has left us. This article has passed a MilHist A-Class review.

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• Per my review at ACR. buidhe 12:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• Per my review at ACR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I looked at this closely at the recent Milhist ACR, and all of my comments were addressed there. Just a couple of nitpicks on another read through:"Worden was a Boy Scout and earned the *rank of First Class Scout"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• suggest "F-86D Sabres" as the aircraft is better known as the Sabre, same for F-102 Delta Daggers

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Colonel Chuck Yeager

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "raising the age limit from 34 to 36" could you add what age Worden was at the time as this had been previously noted as a possible issue for him?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• suggest "After the pause, he remained on the support crew for the second Apollo mission, which involved the testing of the CM and Lunar Module (LM) in Earth orbit."

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• led by Pete Conrad

Not done. I tend to sometimes repeat first names (or in this case, nickname) when someone's last name is also a first name if that makes sense. Pete Conrad has possibly become obscure (at a pub quiz on a cruise ship, they asked us "Who was the third man to walk on the Moon?" Ours was the only team to get it right ...)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• suggest using Template:As of for the uses of "as of" to flag them as potentially dated statements

That's done. I suggest that this is one of those statements that if it became dated, it would be prominent enough to be changed immediately. Here's hoping they become dated, by the way.--17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• ...He was 88.[11][98][108][109] seems citation overkill for some pretty basic facts about his death

Probably stems from the talk page discussion. Cut back to two.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• for "tweeted" link Twitter?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is Note [b] supposed to cite "Worden became the first astronaut to divorce during the program and thereafter fly in space"? The note is uncited, and I can't see material to fully support that sentence in the Telegraph obit. It says "He was also the first astronaut whose career survived a divorce" and "Worden was selected to fly on Apollo 15 in late 1969 just after his divorce"

Sorry, I think I dropped the cite somewhere along the way. It's not cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all I could find this time around. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker67. I've done or replied to all. Sorry about the delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Balon Greyjoy

Article looks pretty comprehensively done. Nice work!

Lead

• "he elected to be commissioned in the Air Force, though he had no piloting experience" I would remove the part about piloting experience; it wasn't a prerequisite to join the Air Force and it wasn't/isn't an uncommon trait to learn to fly upon entering the military

Since Worden makes a point of it and he became very accomplished as a pilot in air and space, as opposed to, say, Scott, who flew from a young age, I'm thinking it's worth including since the lay reader might consider it noteworthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Education

• I would combine the sentences about trying to get a scholarship and the University of Michigan, as the current version is pretty wordy. My take is, "Worden applied for scholarships to fund his college education, but was only able to secure a one-year scholarship to the University of Michigan."

If we are to keep the part about his family not being wealthy, then making it one sentence is a little bit more difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that quote is necessary about him saying that he wouldn't live the rest of his life on the farm. I think Worden's overall story makes it clear that he wasn't trying to become a farmer.

I think it's important to have his own statement regarding his motivation. Even if he hadn't stayed on a farm, there were a lot of jobs in Michigan he could have taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Could you elaborate more on "Worden came to like the demanding life at West Point." There are going to be ups and downs during any military training, let alone a four-year service academy, and while I'm sure that Worden was glad about his decision to attend West Point, it seems like a generalization to say that he liked the entire experience.

No, but it's hard to boil it down. I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Military service

• I don't think it's necessary to say that Worden had no piloting experience when he graduated from West Point; it's not uncommon to not have any military-related experience prior to entering the military, let alone flying experience in the 1950s.

  Comment: During the period from 1947 to 1955 when West Point was the main source of USAF officers, there was a program under which cadets were taken for rides in aircraft as part of their training. The idea was to give them some familiarity with aircraft. Since many officers washed out of flight training, Worden was taking a big risk with his career; if he could not hack it or did not like it, he would be really stuck. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the portion about how Worden felt that promotions would be faster in the Air Force. It's not clear who he thinks they'll be faster than (I'm assuming it's his West Point peers who joined the Army). Additionally, it doesn't seem like he was ever denied promotion or had a slow-rolled career, so it doesn't make much sense to say that speedy promotions weren't the case for him (acknowledging that all of the military astronauts seemed to promote quickly).

  Comment: During World War II, promotion in the Air Corps was much faster than in the ground arms. (A Willie and Joe cartoon had Willie visit an air corps base, to be greeted by the colonel with "Uncle Willie!") But it left the USAF with a pronounced "hump" of officers promoted in this period that drove personnel policies until the 1960s, when they started to retire, a slowed promotions for those commissioned after the war. One of the side effects of this was that USAF officers had less education than their Army counterparts. The scheme of sending officers back to school, which Worden benefited from, arose from this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• What aircraft was Worden training on while at Tyndall AFB? I'm guessing it was F-86 training, but whatever airframe it was on should be mentioned in the sentence.

  Comment: It was the F-86D. The advent of jet bombers made it obsolescent, but it continued in service because the Soviets had not developed a long-range jet bomber capable of reaching the US. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• The ARPS section is a little confusing. It reads like he was an instructor there, and then a graduate, while I'm assuming it was the other way around.

  Comment: No, it is correct. Worden: "It was odd, graduation with the students I taught, but it suited everyone." (p. 52)

Selection

• I would remove the quote about only realizing that the US had a space program in the early 60s. The national attention about the Mercury 7 makes it unlikely that Worden was completely oblivious to the space program until the 1960s. Regard his statement that he decided in the early 1960s that it was "worth looking into," I think it's clear that he felt that way since he applied in 1963, and doesn't require a quote.

Worden tells an anecdote in his memoirs that he and fellow pilots were so busy with work related activities that he did not watch the coverage of Shepard's flight. Sometimes in this Apollo 15 coverage you can't take an autobiographical statement as entirely accurate because there's contradictory information. But here there isn't. So how do I not take him at his word?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

While I don't want to suggest what Worden was thinking or armchair quarterback his commentary, I struggle to believe that he was unaware of the space program until the 1960s, despite what he wrote. In a similar vein, I wouldn't believe it if he wrote that he was so busy in November 1963 that he was unaware of the Kennedy assassination. The Mercury program was national news, and there's no realistic way that an active test pilot in the US Air Force would be unaware of it until the flight portion was underway. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Very well, I've removed all up to his application to be an astronaut in 1963.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Since Worden's biography as used as the reference, I would remove "he related in his biography" and just say that he "applied to NASA's third group of astronauts."

Very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• The two quotes about why he decided to apply are pretty generic and don't tell more about him. The "higher and faster" quote is just the reality of space travel, and it's clear that he felt that becoming an astronaut was a step-up from a test pilot; he wouldn't have applied if he wanted to remain a test pilot.

It definitely has the feel of NASA PR about it, doesn't it? I've cut 1 of the 2. Still, it's useful to have some discussion of Worden's motivation. He had done quite well in his Air Force career and probably would have continued. Plenty of pilots did not want to become astronauts due to the lack of flights that was already becoming apparent, or felt their existing work was more important, or preferred to stay within the Air Force at MOL or felt they should not be in Houston at a time of war.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Replace "cold shoulder" with something more specific, as that is a figure of speech. Were they completely ignored, or was it just more that senior astronauts hoped to beat them on getting flight assignments?

The text is as follows: “ It’s no wonder that some of the older astronauts didn’t warmly welcome us, and in fact resented us showing up. Once you were in the program, Deke often said, you were as qualified to fly into space as anyone else already there. More competition for seats meant fewer flights for the older guys, and for at least the first year they kept us a little isolated from the rest of the team.” Worden does talk about one of the Mercury 7 astronauts (unnamed) telling him he wasn't eligible for the Rathmann Corvette deal when in fact it was open to any astronaut, but that's a page or so earlier and really seems more due to Worden being a new kid in school than due to being competition for a limited number of seats. Is there language you'd prefer?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The quote doesn't really illustrate that the previous astronauts disliked/ignored the new class. The only anecdote here is that a single Mercury 7 tried to keep him out of the Corvette deal. I understand that the previous astronauts would understandably dislike new competition, but there's not any hard evidence to tell about how about the new class was coldly received. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've now hewed closely to what Worden said, that he perceived resentment on their part.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Early assignments

• Was Worden's assignment to a support crew particularly rare? Not to downplay his accomplishment of getting the job, especially since Givens and Haise were also assigned lunar missions, but there's not much else to indicate that it was an measure of success to get the job.

You may mean Mitchell rather than Givens. I think for Group 5 astronauts, yes, being on a support crew on the early Apollo missions got you a good chance of being in the lineup.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong "Ed," typo on my part (facepalm). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "He found it hard to accept that the three accomplished pilots who were to make up the first Apollo space crew died on the ground, rather than flying." I would rephrase this. It's a common theme that astronauts were upset that the Apollo I crew was killed on the ground and not in flight, but it's not like Worden couldn't accept the reality of the situation.

Since he plainly did move on, since he flew on Apollo 15, I think it's fairly implicit that he was able to move on sufficiently.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies if my point was confusing, as I think we have different interpretations on the point I was making. What I meant is that this should be rephrased, because it's not clear what it means when it says that he found it "hard to accept." I think it would make more sense to say that he was very upset by it; I think saying that he couldn't accept something means that he couldn't believe it, whereas I'm sure he had no doubts that they died. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's unnecessary to devote an entire sentence to Slayton describing Worden as a "logical choice." They needed astronauts for these mission billets, and while I'm sure there was a ton of consideration for different crew personalities, none of that is explained here. My take is that this should be removed; Slayton indicated that he thought Worden would be a good member of the crew by selecting him to be a part of it. If it's necessary to leave "logical choice" in, the logic behind the choice should be explained.

That's really all Deke had to say about why he selected Worden. I think it's worth including because a) Deke selected Worden and so his perspective is worth having and b) we don't have any other information on this subject. Worden didn't know and Scott didn't have much to say about Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My point is that Deke would be making a choice he would consider logical. If he had more to say about it regarding his decision, I would consider that his perspective, but just that he made what he felt was the correct choice is redundant. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Deke meant it to say something or he wouldn't have written it. If it isn't as informative as we would like, well, that's Deke Slayton all over.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that Slayton felt this way and decided to put it in his autobiography, but I don't think it adds anything to the narrative about Worden. It's an extraneous detail. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, then, look at it this way, Deke recognized Worden's work on Apollo 9, which is worth mentioning, and the rest should be included because it says that Worden was in the mainstream of Apollo crew selections. He didn't consider it exceptional.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• What's the significance of learning that he was a part of the crew in Scott's office? They would presumably receive work-related news at the workplace. If it's left in, the part about it being from Worden's biography is unnecessary, as the biography is cited.

I don't think it's essential. But I think it's worth including as some flavor of Worden's experience. Clearly it was a big moment for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the quote about the Dick Gordon relationship, as it doesn't say anything beyond what you would expect from a close working relationship. They worked hard together and spent a lot of time together.

It seems an exceptional comment. Certainly Worden did not speak of either of his crewmates in such high terms. I'd rather leave it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• What does it mean "Warden remembered..." It doesn't make sense at the time that he would be remembering it, as it was a current event. Is it just that he stated that in his book? The book itself is already cited, so the fact doesn't need to be attributed to Worden in text.

It's leading into a quote by him and so it's a variation on the usual "Worden wrote," etc. Just a different way of saying the same old thing that you're about to let the reader have a quote from the article subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the Corvette part is interesting, but it's a stretch to say that the 3 Corvettes they drove made them less conspicuous by virtue of not matching. I would remove it.

The actual quote is: “The different cars seemed symbolic of the differences between our crews. The Apollo 12 guys went everywhere together. If you saw one gold-and-black car, you would see three. Eventually, this caused some problems, because astronauts don’t always want to be recognized. Sometimes, it was better to disappear into the woodwork. Our crew didn’t have that problem, as you would rarely see our three cars together.” As Hawkeye7 pointed out, if you saw a Corvette going like a bat out of hell near KSC it was almost certainly an astronaut, but I've added something to the effect that the three cars were rarely seen together.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Preparations and launch

• It's a little confusing to say that this was the first mission that lunar observation from orbit was a mission objective, but then state that the Apollo 13 and 14 CMPs were trained on it. Maybe clarify how Apollo 15 was different in this case?

I've added "formal" before mission objectives. The addition of all that equipment hopefully will help make it clear how 15 was different from earlier ones.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Where did Worden travel for field geology training? I'm assuming to places with igneous exposure. If possible, that sentence should be more specific than "many parts of the world."

I've added examples.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Clarify what Worden was doing at the Downey facilities, as it's vague to just say he spend much of his time there.

Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• What does it mean that he took the children's questions on the trip? Were they written down and given to him, or was he just remembering them?

He wrote them down, took them with him and gave them to Fred Rogers. I'll clarify.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Blasted off" seems like a figure of speech; maybe "launched" or "lifted off" instead?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• It seems excessive to say that it launched "for the Moon" as it was really just headed for orbit, as the trans-lunar injection occurred later.

I've tweaked that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lunar orbit

• I would mention that the Falcon was able to separate after the loose umbilical was reconnected. Right now, it reads that the undocking couldn't occur, Worden reconnected a loose umbilical, and the next sentence jumps to the Falcon on its way down.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The entire paragraph starting with "Busy as he was, he still had time to savor the experience" comes across as WP:POETIC, and doesn't tell much more than that Worden spent some time looking out the window and thinking about things. While I certainly can't fault Worden for being amazed at what he is looking at, it doesn't appear that he had some epiphany or religious experience that changed him in later life beyond the celebrity and success of being an Apollo astronaut.

I think it's important to mention how he felt about it. He was, after all, moved enough to write a book of poetry about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of "and that he was used to being alone as a fighter pilot" as a multi-hour sortie by oneself and a three days in the CSM are very different experiences. It seems like an unnecessary comparison.

I would not include it if someone else made the comparison, but I think it's different that Worden said so.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Return

• Mention the docking of Falcon and Endeavour as the narrative jumps from him being alone to the entire crew headed back to Earth, and he would have had a role in the docking and preparation for the trans-Earth injection.

Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the paragraph starting with "Apollo 15's achievements included..." as almost all of those occurred on the lunar surface, and the ones that didn't (the scientific instrument bay, the deep space EVA) are already mentioned earlier.

Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Covers incident

Hey, this reminds me of a GA review I did! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I remember that :) ... I keep working on that article ... the new biography of George Low was a help ... if we weren't in a pandemic I'd go to New York State to look at his papers myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "two covers were apparently destroyed, leading to a total of 398" What does "appparently destroyed" mean? Did someone claim to have destroyed them, or were they just unaccounted for later?

They were unaccounted for when they were processed after the mission. As detailed in the article you reviewed, Scott said he had never counted them.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "an inquiry to NASA, tipping off Slayton, who warned..." Shouldn't it be "an inquiry by NASA"? Also, "tipping off" is a figure of speech; my take is to say that a NASA inquiry began, "and Slayton warned Worden to avoid..."

No, not at that time. Someone interested in buying a Herrick cover asked NASA if it was real. The letter was forwarded to Slayton. Slayton was on notice that Worden was bringing covers, since they were on his PPK list, so the only thing that concerned Slayton about it was that someone was commercializing a moon-flown object that had come from Worden. As for the tipping off, given my explanation, what would you suggest?==Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed "tipping off:" to "alerting".--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Worden related that the fact that Worden himself was a stamp collector..." This is confusing with the double "Worden." I'm assuming the "Worden related" is a reference to it being from Worden's book. My take it "Slayton, knowing that Worden was a stamp collector, became suspicious that he had arranged both deals,..."

Very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the last sentence about Worden's feelings on disappointing Slayton. But if it's left in, the previous sentence should specifically mention the meeting between Slayton, Scott, and Worden, as it currently just states those are the individuals the Deke learned it from.

I've left it in but made it clearer as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• There's a lot of redundant information about Worden trying to get a job at NASA. The section talks about how Worden was informed that he wouldn't be an astronaut anymore, wanted to continue working with NASA, and that he's unable to promote in the Air Force, and then two paragraphs later the situation is explained that all three astronauts couldn't promote, and that they would stay with NASA. My recommendation is that all of this goes after the section about the hearing.

I've cut the initial reference to the derogatory information. All this was going on from May to August or September 1972, as the covers incident gradually became public. Worden talked about it at the hearing. So now it is being dealt with in a chronological manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Combine the sentence "Slayton told a Senate committee in August 1972..." with the remaining info about the hearing in which Slayton testified that's in the next paragraph.

I've cut the reference to Slayton at the hearing, so now it is chronological.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the quote about Slayton's feelings on the matter; that they told their story is already clear in stating that they testified, and the article about Worden doesn't need info about Deke's after-the-fact opinion.

It's a way of describing what Worden did at the hearing, which would otherwise be difficult, as it was a closed hearing. It's actually not that different than how we did it in the covers article, except there we used what Worden had to say about it. It's not to get in Deke's opinion. It's pretty clear that Deke permanently soured on Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Post-NASA activities

• I would say that he founded Alfred M. Worden, Inc.; saying that he became president makes it sound like it was already an established company. Additionally, what the company did should be explained.

Multiple sources mention it but do not explain it. I'm not certain it's necessary for understanding of Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Worden still believed that other former astronauts looked at him askance because of the postal covers incident." Did this manifest itself in any way? It should be explained what the other former astronauts did to exclude him.

He didn't get specific. "And I felt I was still considered tainted. My peers no longer shunned me, as they had when I left Houston. But behind the smiles and the handshakes I sensed a continuing unease. I was the guy who had been fired. Perhaps I always would be to them.”--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Worden made many public appearances" Were there significant public appearances he made, such as a speaker at a major university or institution?

He spoke widely, I know he spoke at the Museum of Flight a few months before he died. But there's no particular one that is, for example, mentioned in all the obits.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Were there any major events that could be listed? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Define major. He certainly spoke when getting the award from NASA. But how I distinguish major events from Worden showing up because it's a paid gig is unclear to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My subjective opinion on what constitutes a major event would be one where it's expected to have a high-profile speaker, such as a large museum opening, university graduation, Astronaut Hall of Fame, and the like. I just think it should be more clear that he wasn't just offering his paid appearance to whatever organization wanted good PR by having an astronaut speak there. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Not that I see or that he mentions in the post-NASA part of his autobiography. He was still a ways down the former astronaut pecking order.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• "was one of the most approachable of the former astronauts" How is this quantified or objectively measured? I understand this is taken directly from his obituary, but it seems much more like the author was complimenting the late astronaut, as there's no explanation in either the article or the source material of how and to whom he was approachable.

I'm not sure I would go that far. For all the praise Armstrong got in his obits, I doubt anyone ever called him approachable.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would imagine that almost all astronauts would be considered approachable when compared to Armstrong, but that still doesn't qualify Worden to be referred to as one of the most approachable. A lot of the former astronauts had public appearances following their spaceflight careers; one line in an obituary doesn't seem sufficient to solidify his status. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "ready to chat over a vodka on the rocks" This falls under WP:INFORMAL and is not encyclopedic. It should be removed.

I think it goes to how Worden conducted himself in his later years. I could I suppose make it a direct quote but that seems unnecessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Direct quote or not, it's an unnecessary detail. It doesn't say much other than that was his (presumably) favorite drink. It's an editorialized comment from his obituary; it's not like he would only meet with people while drinking a vodka on the rocks, and I'm assuming he wasn't drinking constantly if he made it all the way to the age of 88. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The above two are the same basic objection. I'd like to see what other reviewers think.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Awards and honors

• Did Worden receive any notable Air Force awards? If so, they should be mentioned.

I don't see any mention of it in places I would expect it to be mentioned, say in the Shayler/Burgess book, which has a post-NASA biographical entry for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I would imagine that he had received some awards by virtue of being an O-6, but probably nothing too exciting since he started flying after the Korean War and join the Astronaut Corps prior to Vietnam. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Personal life and popular culture

• What does it mean that he was shunned by the astronauts' wives club? He wasn't in the club originally, so it's not like they kicked him out.

While The Telegraph does not give more details, his book says “A couple of the wives continued to disapprove of me for years. One of them was Deke’s wife, Marge, which was always a little frightening, because I imagined Deke hearing all about it when he was at home. And yet, over time, the wives came to understand that I was no threat to them, and in fact Marge eventually became one of my biggest advocates.” He also relates an anecdote whereby there was a party just after the divorce became final and he feared to go because of the wives' disapproval. Scott told him to go and he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• As a pianist, did he perform at major recitals or shows to make him accomplished? If not, I think that "playing piano" could be grouped together with his other recreational interests.

Merged.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Death

• I would shorten the number of direct-quote tributes listed. My take is to limit it to quotes from very notable people (Bridenstine, Aldrin, and Pence). I'm not a fan of the Kallman quote, as it's quite long. I think the McLaughlin quote should definitely be removed, as the author isn't a notable individual, and there's no indication that the author had any interaction or first-hand knowledge about Worden.

I have removed the McLaughlin one, and cut back on the Kallman one. I think something from Kallman should remain as he knew Worden in recent years.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice! I think it's better now! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have! Please let me know if you have questions or further comments! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the review. I've either implemented or commented on all your suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Balon Greyjoy, did you want to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping to see if any additional editors would weigh in on the approachable astronauts/vodka on the rocks comments that we left above. But it seems like that is not occurring. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy what are your thoughts now? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz

Review to come but in meantime Wehwalt can you rescue the "astronomy" ref just removed? JennyOz (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The bot did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, could I ask you to crack on with this if have a chance? It's been open a fair while but I don't want to archive if you're ready to comment... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Before you do so, let me see if the people who weighed in at the A-class review wish to do so here AustralianRupert and Hawkeye7.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I am not really in the right frame of mind to review for FAC at the moment, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

"How was your EVA?" "It was ruff going."

-EEng

I haven't much to say; I am very happy with the sate of the article. I was pleased to find the image of the ARPS class, but you trumped me with the pics of the corvettes. I would consider moving the Group five image down a paragraph and across to the left to maiantain the left-right sequence; and move the image of the postal cover down one paragraph. Suggest simplify the spacewalk caption to "Worden performing the first deep-space EVA during Apollo 15's homeward journey". (EEng would say that if any Soviet space dogs performed EVAs that would be really interesting.) But these are just suggestions.

• Note b could use a reference
• "Air Force" and "test pilot" are doubly linked in the lead
• In the body, "Aerospace Research Pilot School", "Apollo Program" and "George Low" are double-linked.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the double lead link for "test pilot", the other double links are due to one being a pipe, or, in the case of George Low, he is only introduced as a NASA official when he proposes Apollo 8 as lunar mission, and it is simpler to re-link him in the postal covers section than to remind the reader that he has been talked about before. Note b is now sourced. I was very pleased about the Corvettes, I need to follow up with the guy, he knows people at NASA and showed me other pix we might make use of. But good job on the ARPS class. As for the spacewalking pooch, I suppose there will be a need to walk the dog even in space ... thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just a few suggestions for you to consider, looks very comprehensive Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• spent his early years on farms— perhaps rephrase to make it clear that he was living on farms, rather than working
• U.S.'s service academies — U.S. service academies would be acceptable, at least to a Brit, and is less clunky
• perhaps link "cheerleading" and "umbilical"
• 47th in his class — out of 47? 500?

  Out of 470. By 1960, 260 were serving in the Army and 122 in the Air Force; 81 had returned to civilian life, 2 were foreign graduates, and 5 were dead. By 1990, only 5 were still serving in the Army and 2 in the Air Force, and 36 were dead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• as it proved correctly— perhaps as proved correct?

• Two cameras, a stellar camera and a metric camera, together comprised the mapping camera, which was complemented by a panoramic camera—five repeats og "camera" in one sentence

Down to four.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Worden founded Alfred M. Worden, Inc —which did what?

  He doesn't say in his memoirs and the sources that mention it don't expand on it either.

  "Maris Worden Aerospace, Inc., formed with John Maris to develop and patent an Aerodynamic Performance Monitor and Stall Warning System for aircraft" [2] The company still exists. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• In External links, IMDB and Medium are not considered reliable sources. I don't have a problem with the Medium link, but I don't thin IMBD adds anything.

I've done all those except as noted. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.