Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 16/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2021 [1].

Apollo 16 edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the next to last mission to land on the Moon. It's actually the only one that I remember watching astronauts on the Moon since I was home from school when it was on the lunar surface. Difficult to believe it is fifty years in April.Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Not much to say. Article looks pretty good. I have some comments though.

  • "Virgil I. Grissom" Suggest "Gus Grissom"
  • "Duke was 36 years old at the time of Apollo 16" Add that this made Duke the youngest person to walk on the Moon. A record he still holds, although he's now 85. (You do mention it in "Lunar surface")
  • I might have also mentioned that Gene Cernan was Slayton's first pick for LMP, but declined in favour of commanding his own mission.
Reading from Slayton's memoirs, he says that happened in the backup crew selection for 13 so it may be better to just skip it in the 16 article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flight directors during Apollo had a one-sentence job description," Suggest colon instead of comma
  • I don't think the "Mission insignia and call signs" section is properly a part of the "Crew and key mission personnel" section. Suggest altering the indentation to put it on the same level.
  • "ALSEP and other surface equipment": Given how much detail we have here, could we mention that the ALSEP was powered by a SNAP-27 isotopic power system?
  • Do we really need all that material in fn 68?
  • "The first and second stages of the Saturn V" Given that we've already mentioned the S-IC, suggest referring to them as S-IC and S-II, linking the latter.
  • "At the end of day two, Apollo 16 was about 140,000 nautical miles (260,000 km) away from Earth. At the beginning of day three, the spacecraft was about 157,000 nautical miles (291,000 km)" Why isn't the end of day two the same as the beginning of day three?
That is, the start of day three takes into account the sleep period. I'll rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This had been attempted on Apollo 15, but the camera malfunctioned." Ambiguity here; it worked okay on Apollo 16.
  • "53.1 x 67.8 nmi" Metric conversion required.
  • "The spacecraft and its crew was retrieved by USS Ticonderoga." State that it is an aircraft carrier on first mention.
  • "The aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga delivered" Just Ticoderoga now.
  • "He left two items on the Moon, both of which he photographed." Ambiguity here; he didn't take the photograph; NASA photographer Ludy Benjamin did. Duke photographed the photograph on the Moon.
  • "(NASA Photo AS16-117-18841)" Do we need this?
  • I don't think "Pacific Ocean" needs to be linked.
  • "They were safely aboard the Ticonderoga 37 minutes after splashdown." Ambiguity here: by "they" do mean just the crew, or both crew and the spacecraft?
  • link "lieutenant commander", "Lunar Roving Vehicle", aircraft carrier
  • Duplicate links: Apollo 13, Saturn V, Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph (I wonder why they didn't abbreviate it as FUC?), regolith, South Ray (x 2), North Ray (x 2), United States Air Force, splashed down, reaction control system
  • Matter of personal taste, but I'd dump the poor image of the LM liftoff and substitute one of the nice ones of the recovery.
I think a lunar picture works better here, although as you point out, the still isn't the greatest.
  • Strongly recommend that metric consistently be used first
    I think the Apollo suite of articles need to be consistent about this, and right now we're using miles first.
    Sometimes this article has miles first, and sometimes km. Have another look at the Lunar surface section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spaceflight portal is already in the subject bar at the bottom, so recommend removal from the See Also section.
  • Typo: Hourston

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass edit

Starting the image review...

  • The sources for File:Apollo-16-LOGO.png and File:Apollo 16 crew.jpg seem to be broken links. Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise File:Apollo16-SaturnV-to-Launchpad39A.jpg and File:Ap16 pse.jpg, same issue. Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for File:ALSEP AS16-113-18374.jpg and File:As16-118-18885 edit.jpg is just "NASA". Is that specific enough? I don't have a strong opinion, but just most of these seem to direct to a specific source online. Moisejp (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to the other images soon. The licensing and captions on all the first half of the images are otherwise all good. Moisejp (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following also have dead links for the source:
  • File:Apollo_16_meeting.jpg
  • File:Young_and_Rover_on_the_Descartes_-_GPN-2000-001133.jpg
  • File:S72-35613.jpg
  • File:S72-37001.jpg

Besides that everything is properly licensed and captioned. Moisejp (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed those. Thanks for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it all looks good now. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support on prose from Extraordinary Writ edit

First of all: although I've reviewed plenty of GANs and the like, this is my first foray into FAC reviewing, so feel free to correct or ignore anything that seems off. Since this definitely isn't my area of expertise, I'll probably focus on prose.

  • The article seems to alternate between "-meter" and "-metre". Since this is in AmEng, I presume you want the former, but of course consistency is all that matters.
Fixed as er.
  • to land on the Moon – linking "land" to Moon landing seems like a bit of an WP:EASTEREGG. I'd link "land on the Moon" to it and link Moon elsewhere (or not at all).
  • Launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on April 16, 1972, there were a number of minor glitches – this is a dangling modifier. An alternative might be "Launched...on April 16, 1972, it experienced a number of minor glitches..." (This is also a rather long sentence: it might benefit from being split in two or even three.)
  • A member of the support crew for Apollo 8 and Apollo 9. – not a full sentence.
  • Mattingly then undertook parallel training... – another quite long sentence that could be broken up.
  • and kept them updated; – a full stop would work better here.
  • Capsule communicators (CAPCOMs) were Haise... – "capsule communicators" was linked above (at was a capsule communicator), so this is a duplink.
  • Orion is one of the brightest constellations as seen from Earth. and one visible – Remove the period. You might also link Orion (constellation).
  • Although previous Apollo expeditions, including Apollo 14... – The numerous clauses in this sentence make it a bit confusing. Perhaps you could reword it so that the train of thought isn't so often interrupted?
  • There remained the possibility, because the... – this would read more clearly if the "because" clause was at the beginning of the sentence.
  • At Descartes, the Cayley and Descartes formations... – this sentence is long enough that it should be split in two.
  • the first time U.S. astronauts did so – it was across the US (without the periods) earlier.
  • ...evidence of shatter cone geology familiarizing the Apollo crew... – I'd put a comma after "geology".
  • The astronauts spent much time... – I think the "and" in this sentence belongs after "on the mission".

That gets me to the "Equipment" section, where I'll resume sometime soon. Again, feel free to disregard anything that I've misunderstood. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Retrorocket.
  • These four retrorockets had been deleted from Apollo 15's Saturn V – "deleted" seems an unusual choice of word, although that may just be me.
  • I agree with Kusma below that the substantial whitespace is a bit disconcerting to the reader.
  • to measure the Moon's magnetic field, which is only a small fraction of Earth's. – I'd specify what precisely we're measuring: "to measure the ____ (strength?) of the Moon's magnetic field". Otherwise, it's not really clear what the "small fraction" is refering to.
  • This, in combination with concerns... – break into two sentences
  • becoming the tenth and age 36 (as of 2021) the youngest human to walk on the Moon – I think you're missing a preposition here, and it sounds as if he's age 36 as of 2021. One option might be "becoming the tenth and, at age 36, the youngest human to walk on the Moon (as of 2021)."
I've adopted your language, more or less, but it's difficult to state.
  • and with Duke erecting the United States flag – if you're trying to say that he and Duke erected the flag together, it might be clearer to put commas around "with Duke".
I've rephrased.
  • At a 2019 reunion... – this sentence doesn't seem to tell us anything that isn't already apparent from the previous sentence.
Cut.
  • After waking up three and a half minutes early – this paragraph contains seven sentences that start with "after": a bit more of a variety would be good. (It's most acute here, but there may be other places that could benefit from fewer "after" sentences.)
  • which Duke described as "spectacular," – the comma goes outside the quotation marks, per MOS:LQ. Ditto for an area known as the "Vacant Lot,".

More soon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • later analysis and found it – remove "and"
  • it was about 45,000 nautical miles – I'd use something other than "it" since it's not immediately clear what it's referring to.
  • they had been so certain that Cayley was volcanic, they had been open to dissenting views – shouldn't this be "they had not been open to dissenting views"?
  • I happened to check fn. 136: page 453 of this seems to be a picture of David Scott on Apollo 15. Perhaps the page number or ISBN is off?
Absolutely right, Scott in the LRV. My typo somehow, should have read 483–484.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • analogs from Earth – "analogues" would seem more natural in this context, although that may just be me.
I think analog is more common in US English. Open to persuasion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster's note suggests that analogue is preferred except when referring to chemistry or clocks, but (needless to say) this isn't a hill I'm going to die on.
I've switched to analogues.
  • separated 24 April 1972 – you've used mdy formatting throughout, so I presume this should be the same.
  • the 91-centimetre – should be centimeter, per my comment above.
  • The caption on the main infobox picture is a full sentence, so it should have a period at the end per MOS:CAPFRAG.
I don't think it's a sentence, but a description.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least on my monitor, there's a considerable amount of image sandwiching, particularly in the Planning and training and Equipment sections. If that isn't just me, you may need to reorder or remove a few pictures.
I cut one that I felt was less necessary. I think that will help some.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're just about there as far as the prose is concerned; I'll give it another read-through (hopefully tomorrow) before supporting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've acted on these. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. You've addressed all of my concerns: thanks for your hard work on this article! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for a very thorough review, and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Kusma edit

I was contacted on my talk page and am happy to comment/review. I haven't read (and won't do so now) the sibling articles in detail, and will just comment on what I would like to see in an article without knowing what is "the standard". I realise that this has advantages as well as disadvantages, and things that turn out just to be my personal view will not make me oppose a promotion. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comment: I'm not a fan of the uses of {{clear}} that lead to massive whitespace on wide screens.
Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems written very much from a NASA point of view, and sort of ends when the astronauts return. If we'd rather consider this as a scientific mission, we should expect to learn a lot more about the scientific background, the experiments made and data retrieved, and what we have learned from it. (There is quite a bit of this in the article, but it is a bit scattered). Is there some way to provide a summary of in what way science was advanced by Apollo 16?
I've added material on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although not officially announced, the original backup crew had been If this is not official, you should name your source in the text.
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • because James McDivitt, who would command Apollo 9, believed that, with preparation going on in facilities across the U.S., meetings that needed a member of the flight crew would be missed. Can you untangle this sentence? Is the Apollo 9 mention here to tell us that Deke decided this pre-Apollo 9? (The previous sentence about Gemini/Mercury kind of answers that, but could also be clearer).
I've tried to clarify. The reason for the phrasing on McDivitt is that he was then an Apollo crew commander and eventually flew Apollo 9 with his crew, but which flight he was to do was swapped around several times and it was not settled on Apollo 9 until around October 1968, long after the support crews were created. I've reworked the Gemini/Mercury sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "insignia" as singular hurts my Latin-trained eyes, but is acceptable in English.
Understood.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • chose "Orion" for the call sign for the lunar module Do you have to use "for the" twice here?
Rejigged.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • stray period in next Orion sentence
Gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Landing site selection: "type J mission" could be linked again here.
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of mysterious unnamed "scientists" here. Are there any names known? Were they all inside NASA or from the wider scientific community?
I've dropped a few names and an affiliation or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same vein, there is a lot of passive voice locations ... were given primary consideration, three scientific objectives were determined, It was decided to target,
I've made it clear what committee made the actual decisions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sampling the Descartes and Cayley formations ... was determined ... to be the primary sampling interest Can you say this without repeating "sampling"?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Training: for geology training exercises, the first time U.S. astronauts did so Were they the first to train in geology, the first to do so in Sudbury, or the first to train in Canada?
Canada, thus also Sudbury.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevada test site: perhaps mention that this is related to nuclear tests? Why did they go there, for Nevada geology or for special trinitite/nuclear related interests?
I hope I've addressed all of that in a compact manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that they had been backups for Apollo 13, planned to be a landing mission, meant that they could spend about 40 percent of their time training for their surface operations You could be clearer in stating that they already knew a lot of stuff (and what type of stuff).
I think this is already made clear by the fact that they had already trained for Apollo 13. So they knew enough to perform that mission (as it was planned, that is).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have training without space suits in Sudbury basin and later a lot of training in space suits. I'm still a bit confused whether the not being in space suits in Sudbury was an exception.
They didn't wear them much on field exercises. Those things were heavy under Earth gravity, especially once you added the backpacks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launch vehicle: So was it very different from the one used for Apollo 14?
Not that different. A little more efficient, since they were always tinkering with things and the final three missions carried more weight, what with the rover and other add-ons for the J missions. There are comparisons between 15 and 14 Saturn Vs in the Apollo 15 article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientists also hoped to learn from an Apollo 12 sample Who were the scientists, and did they learn anything?
There were two scientists who wrote about it, one with NASA and one with the University of Toronto. I don't find anything that really closes the loop on this one and describes the roles in getting this on board. This apparently was added quite late.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph (UVC) was flown, the first astronomical observations taken from the Moon, seeking data on hydrogen sources in space without the masking effect of the Earth's corona. I don't quite understand this sentence. Is "flown" just "carried to the moon" and is there a "to be used to" missing? And my usual question: did they obtain any data?
I've added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will stop here and do highlights later or tomorrow. Hope some of this is useful and not just annoying :) —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent changes so far, very happy with what you've added. (And I learned about the Apollo 14 at the Nördlinger Ries story and Slayton saying "looks like too much fun and not enough work" [2] but that's probably not for the Apollo 16 article). Will continue to review the rest in a bit. —Kusma (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. May add it to the Apollo 14 article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights section title: Really just the highlights? Looks pretty comprehensive to me.
Changed to "Mission events".
  • Trans Lunar Injection: trans-lunar injection looks better to me.
  • they attempted to prove the higher purity of particle migrations in the zero-gravity environment. I don't understand what "purity of migrations" is supposed to mean, but I'm still curious whether they were successful or not.
Somewhat, although it looks like the experiment equipment didn't work as well as helped.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar surface: you have already introduced the abbreviation SIM in the section above.
  • North Ray crater visit: They drove 0.8 km then 1.4 km so they were 4.4 km away? Something is not right here.
Good catch. The directions don't seem to be complete in the source so I've cut that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • station 13 Is that a proper name?
Should be. I've standardized these.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solo activities: is this the best possible section title?
In four articles on the landing missions, I've not come up with a better. "Lunar orbit activities" doesn't do it well because the three astronauts conducted experiments and so forth after returning from the surface.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launch of the ascent stage image: I don't understand what I'm seeing. Is this from an automated camera during launch? Do I see anything that indicates launch?
The TV camera on the lunar roving vehicle was positioned to cover the takeoff. But I agree, it's pretty crappy as a still. I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep space EVA: Why were these necessary on the J missions (called "J-missions" here)? Is this so super special as to need to be stated in so much detail? (I'm not an astronaut (duh), but I'm wondering whether deep space EVAs are actually easier than LEO ones).
It was necessary to retrieve the film from the cameras that had been photographing the surface, and it had to be done since the SM would not survive the journey. It was, in a way, Mattingly's big moment so I think some detail is justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to earth: At end of section, you switch between three units (miles, nautical miles, kilometers) and two units (km, nautical miles) and it's not clear why which is listed first. Can you drop the nautical miles?
NASA was using nmi for their figures at the time. I dislike to totally lose it. Km comes first because it was recommended earlier in the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath: Thanks for adding this section.
  • External links: Haven't checked in detail (but I'd recommend that someone does). Some might be useful as additional sources? This one contains a little more about the science and the EVA, for example.

I think that's it from me. A great article, especially the detailed description of flight and time on the moon. Expecting to support this soon. —Kusma (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great article, very good additions during review. —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a thorough review and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

While this has attracted a general support and passed the important image review the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in requests of three people whose articles I have recently reviewed. Hopefully there will be sufficient fruit, though I'd appreciate it if you'd give it time if necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full support edit

Wehwalt has again took a major Apollo topic and brought it to featurable status. The Apollo articles, and Wehwalt, could be called treasures of Wikpedia's spaceflight and lunar exploration collections. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support. I appreciate the nice words.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Display name 99 edit

I'm coming into this knowing nothing about spacecraft, but Wehwalt has reviewed just about all of my FACs and it's always a shame to see a nomination fail because of a lack of reviews, so here goes. Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you clarify what it means to have been in the second or fifth group of astronauts? Second or fifth group of people ever in space? Second or fifth group of Americans? Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified it was the second group to be selected by NASA. That Young was the first American not of the Mercury Seven to fly in space hopefully addresses the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crew assignment on Apollo 19.[30][31] However, after the cancellations of Apollos 18 and 19 " Fix the linking here. "Cancellation of Apollo missions" is linked twice. I would link it once under [cancellations of Apollos 18 and 19]. Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made it through to the end of "Landing Site Selection." It looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the end of "Launch and outward journey." No further issues. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Down to "Solo activities." I think that the article is in very good condition. Can you clarify what data was lost due to the change in flight plan? Also, what does it mean for a frame to be overexposed? Maybe you explained that earlier and I missed it. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it clearer that some areas of the lunar surface that they had hoped to photograph could not be, and a link to the relevant photography article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Display name 99, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gog the Mild. I'm still making my way through the article. I should be done today. I'm sorry for my slow pace. I'll finish up the review then. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Display name 99, feel free to take your time. Apologies if I seemed to be breathing down your neck. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

References

  • #19: Missing title, publisher, etc.
  • #20: National Air and Space Museum can take a link.
  • #25: Universe Today can take a link.
  • #28: Missing publisher (NASA), date, and possibly editor. And shouldn't it be "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal"?
We don't seem to have been consistent in the landing articles on this. "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal" encompasses the individual ones, see here. I've gone through the ALSJ cites and addressed the issues with them.
  • #31: NASA can take a link. Author and date missing (see bottom of page).
  • #32: Date missing. University of Maryland can take a link.
  • #33: NASA can take a link.
  • #38: Author missing. NASA can take a link.
No listed author. While it is taken from Lattimer's book (which I have), it says it comes from other sources as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #39: NASA can take a link.
  • #43: Editor and publisher (NASA) missing.
  • #44: Encyclopedia Astronautica can take a link.
  • #45: Missing publisher (NASA), date, and editors. And shouldn't it be "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal"?
  • #52: Missing date and authors.
  • General comment: Retrieval dates not needed when using archived URLs.
  • #56: Author missing. Date missing. Volume/issue missing.
Ref cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #67, 74: What's up with the page numbers?
Apollo mission reports and preliminary science reports had page numbers such as 5–7, which would be the seventh page of the fifth section. They look awkward, but that's what they are.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says plainly in the heading "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal". (also applies to others below). Also, not all of the archived versions of the journals have dates beyond the copyright year.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the heading now. As to the date, see "Last updated: 2020-02-07". --Usernameunique (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the present footnote 81, not the footnote 81 in the version you reviewed?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. (Just adjusted the numbering below for similar errors). But old footnote 81 also has a date: "Last updated: 2006-05-08". --Usernameunique (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #82: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #83: Author, date, and publisher missing.
  • #84: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #85: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #86: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #88: What page are you citing?
  • #89: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #91: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #92: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #93: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #94: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #95: NASA can take a link.
  • #96: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #97: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #98: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #99: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #100: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #101: NASA can take a link.
  • #102: "Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal", I think. And this is in the "| website = " parameter, not the "| publisher = " parameter, causing the formatting to be inconsistent with the other Lunar Surface Journal sources.
  • #103: ISBN not hyphenated. Publisher location missing. Suggest using "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.
  • #105: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #106: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #107: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #108: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #109: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #110: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #111: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #112: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #113: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #114: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #115: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #116: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #117: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #118: Editor, date, and publisher missing.
  • #122: Looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal"
  • #127: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #128: looks like it's "Apollo Flight Journal", not "Apollo 16 Flight Journal". Editors could be added.
  • #129: What makes this reliable? It looks like it might be, would just like your reasoning.
LePage is widely published and credentialed. See for example.
  • General comment: The various flight/surface journals are mostly missing their publisher (NASA) information. Just realized this now, so commenting on it here rather than going back and adding it for each one.
  • #130: Date, editor, and publisher missing.
  • #131: Date missing
  • #133: Date missing.
  • #134: Editors, date, and publisher missing.
  • #139: Publisher missing.
  • #140: Publisher missing.
  • #141 and #142 are missing the page, volume, and issue numbers. I would combine these into one cite, and style the page range "1–2"
  • #143: The Sydney Morning Herald can be linked. Page and issue number missing.
  • #144: Should be National Air and Space Museum (and linked), not Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Compare with #19, which doesn't say "Smithsonian".
  • #146: Should be Space.com (and linked), not Space.
  • General comment: Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter for works with multiple authors and/or editors.
Can I ask what the advantage is of that?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It makes the demarcation between authors/edits a bit more clear, and ampersands look nice. Just a suggestion—it's by no means a requirement. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #147: Why is the picture being linked directly? Is there not a landing page that has the details of the image, plus a link to the full-resolution version?

Bibliography

  • Brooks et al. 1979: The publisher is given as "Scientific and Technical Information Branch, NASA", which is the same for at least one of the others (Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, possibly others also), except that one is just given as "NASA".
  • Phinney 2015: Publisher location missing.
  • Wilhelms 1993: This is the only publisher location that is linked. Should be consistent throughout.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've got most things here. It's a lot (I relied too heavily on earlier work on the article) so forgive me if something slips through the cracks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with the further comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed those. Thanks for a very thorough source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Late to the table on this one – just didn't clock it. After reading through twice I have no quibbles and am happy to support the elevation of this comprehensive, readable and well sourced article. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 21:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2021 (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_16/archive1&oldid=1046899970"