Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Apollo missions/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 16:15:14 1 April 2019 (UTC) [1].

List of Apollo missions edit

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-nominating this for featured list because I feel it exemplifies a featured list on Wikipedia. I have researched this topic thoroughly, and I feel this list reflects that.

Note: I previously nominated this list on 3 March 2018 and then was eventually closed due to my inactivity. I'm not in class this semester and will be much more responsive to feedback. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

- Remove gap between the two refs at the end of the first para
  - Done.
- Those are the only two refs against that para - do they support the entire content?
  - Yes, but I clarified the references.
- Again, lots of unref'd sentence in para 2 - are they all supported by the ref at the end?
  - Yes again, but I clarified the references and added some.
- And again in para 3.....
  - Fixed.
- And para 4 has no refs at all
  - Fixed.
- "Some incongruity in the numbering and naming of the first three unmanned Apollo-Saturn (AS), or Apollo flights." - this is not a complete sentence
  - Fixed
- Consider using {{abbr}} for the "LV" in the first table heading
  - Fixed.
- Intro text to second table has no refs
  - Fixed.
- Intro text to fourth table has no refs
  - Fixed.
That's it from me - lack of refs is the big issue that I can see..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all of the above. For the most part, the information was referenced just in different places. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 20:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - apologies for taking so long to check back in, I completely forgot I had committed on this one........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLooks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The entry for Apollo 20 makes it look more certain than it was. See the linked article. Roosa or Mitchell / Lousma / Lind looks more likely to me. Under the normal rotation scheme it would have been commanded by Roosa, but note how Haise was a LMP expert. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See this edit on Pogue's article. The source in that article says none of them were officially assigned, and the crews that you have listed in this article are just assumed based on normal crew notation. You need to note that in the article, and add a source. Kees08 (Talk) 04:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

Drive-by comments, unlikely to result in a support or oppose.

Date formats in citations should be the same.
The choice of using National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the citations instead of NASA is peculiar; linking some but not all of them is also peculiar. My first point probably does not need addressed, the second probably does.
Two bare URLs. One of them is an angelfire link. Is that really the best source available? I see at least one other angelfire link.
Citations such as "Lunar Module LTA-8". should be fully expanded
Where does this author come from? It is not listed on the web page. Ryba, Jeanne (8 July 2009). "Apollo 7". National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved 15 February 2017
Should be pp, not p, and should use an endash in the page range. Shayler, David (26 August 2002). Apollo: The Lost and Forgotten Missions. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 117, 124-125. ISBN 9781852335755.
At least Apollo 5 has a mission patch; perhaps add a column in the unmanned test missions table Kees08 (Talk) 06:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a couple of minutes reviewing the citations. You should go through the entire list with a fine-toothed comb looking for similar issues. Let me know when you have, and I will give the citations another review. If I find a similar rate of errors and omissions that I am now, I will probably oppose the nomination. Thanks for the hard work so far, the issues should be pretty easy to spot and fix! Kees08 (Talk) 05:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewrbowker: Any updates? Kees08 (Talk) 06:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Oops, thought I had posted here. I have been doing a complete source update offline, as my internet has issues staying connected. I will be posting an update addressing all issues within the next couple days. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 21:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cancelled and post-Apollo sections have separate columns for each of the three astronaut positions but the main manned list has a single crew column. The lead of the main list should at least note that the crew is listed in a certain order, if not split up the same way.
These three tables have different columns in different orders (mission-patch-"launch date"-crew-vehicle, crew positions-date, and "launch"-mission+patch-vehicle-crew positions) and should be synchronized.
Crew in Thermal-vacuum tests are bulleted, but not in the manned table.
That table has "Notes" that includes the duration while the other tables have "Duration" and "Remarks" columns.
I have literally no idea what thermal-vacuum tests are!! These are not mentioned in the lead and that section does not introduce them at all. Are these even "missions"?
Tables variously have headers "Launch", "Date", "Launch date", and a "Launch date and vehicle if used" (rather than separate columns for those like the others, yet with "Launch time" in a separate column unlike the rest!). You really need to work on consistency.
Also "LV Serial No", "Vehicle", and "Launch vehicle" Sheesh
Kees08 notes using the same date formats in citations but you also need the same formats in the tables! I'd say to use American MDY.
"A total of" is practically never necessary.
Service module, lunar module, command module pilot, and more are common nouns.
Quotation marks are not needed for spacewalk or moonwalk, which are spelled as single words and lowercase at Extravehicular activity.
Biggest problem of all: Most of the lead is simply copied and pasted from Apollo program, wtf?
- Strong oppose, I suggest withdrawing and starting over. Chris and Hawkeye are usually great reviewers but I'm confused how they came to support this. Reywas92^Talk 08:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think of myself as being much good as a reviewer, but the fact that the only issue I raised has not been addressed is disturbing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewrbowker: Do you intend to continue with this nomination/address Reywas92's concerns? --Pres N 16:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew hasn't edited for nearly a month, so closing this now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list 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.