Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 15/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [1].

---

Apollo 15

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... a mission which went extremely well in most respects, but nevertheless had to overcome difficulties en route, and regrettably was overshadowed later.Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Some of the details in the infobox, such as the precise launch and landing mass, don't seem to be sourced anywhere. There's also an attribution note stating that the article includes PD content from NASA - which websites or documents does that encompass? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the text has been worked over enough that that notice can be deleted. I'll cite the infobox details, probably to the Mission Report, over the next couple of days. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Mostly done, need to do further research on the remainder. Will report completion when done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I've sourced everything except those items (for example, the crew) that appear in the body of the article. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The article appears to have a MOS:SANDWICH problem. I am seeing text with images on both sides almost all the way through, displaced headers (because of left placed images) and a large area of white space at the bottom (which usually happens when there are too many images in an article). If Featured Articles are allowed to have sandwiched text then the guideline becomes ineffectual. Not an enviable task but I think some images need to be sent back to Commons, leaving only the best behind. I found that the images distracted from the text. Good luck. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I've cut some, with regret. There are a couple of places still where there is some crowding, but I think all of the images (mostly videos) involved are valuable to the reader and important to them understanding the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Could have a gallery, rather than losing them entirely? That would solve the problem of sandwiching too (I'm not sure of the restrictions on when galleries or not to be used, but it is worth looking into). - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It had a gallery, it was suggested I remove it at the A-class review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looking at the A Class thread and the relevant policy, it seems like this is just one person's dislike of them: if the images in any particular gallery are "a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images", then I think we're OK to include one, if you feel it suitable. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Very well, I will start one, using the deleted images and some of the wealth of images that we already have on Commons or can easily get from NASA sites. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added a gallery of (right now) 12 still images and 4 multimedia. I'll poke around the Apollo image sites for a few more. I think that would do it without overdoing it. A lot of the images display things talked about in the article that we don't have space to picture alongside text. So I think it's within policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to follow the layout of Apollo 11? Has very little sandwiching and no gallery. It would make FA nomination easier for other Apollo articles if they followed the example of Apollo 11 surely. I haven't counted but it looks like the addition of the gallery has increased the image count, not decreased it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It probably has increased, but there should be a lot less sandwiching right now. I'd like to hear from reviewers on the question of images. I do think there was more of an effort to take photographs on Apollo 15. Certainly, with the rover television camera, there were more videos. Apollo 8, another FA, has many images. Also, with 11, I think there is more of a focus on the lunar landing, whereas this was more of a science mission and possibly there is ground for more illustrations.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I am fine with the gallery. Note: I started writing this next part without read the entire thread above, so I suppose I agree a bit with Nimbus but do not care much. I was generally trying for consistency in the crewed Apollo missions, Apollo 8 and Apollo 11 did not have a gallery and were already FA, so I figured it could be done with Apollo 15. Like you said though, it was a science mission, and longer, so there were many more images. I did exclude a lot of images from Apollo 11 that I would have liked to include, but perhaps I can just add a gallery there eventually. As a last aside regarding a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images, I thought the images were described by the article in enough detail, therefore fit the criteria to exclude the gallery. I have a good example somewhere of when I think it is appropriate to include a gallery, but of course I cannot find it right now. Long story short: I would prefer to exclude the gallery but think an argument can be made either way. Kees08 (Talk) 03:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

SC

• Marker to remind me to pop by and look this over. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Crew

• "in 1932 in Jackson, Michigan and..." comma after Michigan
• Link West Point?

As the article says he went to the same school as Scott, I think we're OK there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Planning

• "The astronauts at NASA who were scientists, such as geologist Harrison Schmitt, pushed through the early Apollo missions for a greater place for science, but often there were higher priorities or astronaut disinterest." I had to read this a couple of times to try and get my head round it, and it still confuses me slightly
• "Hadley Rille" – worth linking rille?

Done to the end of "Planning": more later. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Final batch from me:

Hardware

• "all three Apollo 15 astronauts were Air Force officers": you've already told us this in the "Crew" section
• "the service module's SIM bay": link SIM? (I'm not sure you've told us what SIM stands for – although I may have missed it)

Launch

• Should two-hour be hyphenated in "the two hour, 37 minute launch window"?

Second and third EVAs

• "a falcon, a mascot at the United States Air Force Academy—all three Apollo 15 astronauts served in the Air Force.[ALSJ 3]" Second time you've told us the falcon was the USAFA mascot, third time you've told us they were in the AF.

That's it from me. An enjoyable and interesting read. Leaning heavily to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you. I've adjusted those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Nice piece of work. It's the first space article I've reviewed, so I don't know how it stacks up against the others, but I found it informative, interesting and above the standards required for the FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

I'll do the image review. There are a lot of images, so it might take me a couple of days to get through. Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, so I started looking. First I looked at the captions, which all seem good and consistent, then I started looking for alt text and got through the first handful of images without finding any. As you know, I believe alt text is not absolutely required for FAC but is considered best practice. Is that something you'd want to add to any images where it's lacking? Meanwhile, I'll next look at the images themselves (licenses, etc.). Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added alt text to all but the gallery which since its fate is in doubt, I'd rather wait on. Your views on the gallery would be welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that your pre-gallery version was overly crowded in some places. There are a lot of images in your current gallery, but whether there are too many—or too many in the article as a whole—I can't say. If the images are free and available, maybe it can't hurt to include all of them, since some moon-trip enthusiasts may appreciate having them there. For me, the Apollo 11 article has just the right balance visually, but, again, I'm not a moon-trip enthusiast, and I imagine many of the (Apollo 15) article's readers may be. In short, I don't have a strong opinion about the current number of images or about having the gallery, and I think it's probably fine as is. Moisejp (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

All the licenses look good, and the pre-gallery alt text is all good. If you decide to keep the gallery, I'll trust in good faith that you'll add alt text there as well for consistency. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Support – Not having seen the article before this review I went through it minutely, and can find nothing in the prose to quibble about. The coverage of the topic is well and broadly referenced, and has every appearance of being thoroughly comprehensive. As for the illustrations, embarras de richesses!. I much enjoyed this article, which seems to me to meet the FA criteria in every respect. Tim riley talk 13:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• The external link to Compton, online chapter To the Mountains of the Moon is dead

  Link replaced.

• Do we really need the EVA durations clocked to the second?

  They were in the article when I began improvement; didn't see the point of rounding them.

• a plane change burn I'm not sure that specifying the type of burn here is really necessary as the explanation is perfectly adequate.

  I'd rather keep it, unless you feel strongly about it.

  Strikes me as awkward, but not going to make an issue of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing else jumped out at me on this first read. I'll do another one later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Nope, didn't see anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

Article is very good. Some quibbles:

• Can we please have conversions of the old measurements (nmi) into metric?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• The funny page numbers make it hard for me to look things up.

  I've been able to change them for Scott's book. But I don't have hard copies of Worden's or Slayton's, and the discussion at WT:FAC seems to say that Kindle locations are acceptable.

  My fear is that while page numbers will not change for a given edition of the book, Amazon may change the Kindle locations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Schmitt would be the first member of Group 4 to fly in space" Would it be appropriate here to mention that Group 4, selected in 1965, were the first group of scientist astronauts, the other groups being pilots? (Similar to the way the Excess 11 are described below?)

I've added the group nickname in parens..--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Link S-IC, S-II, North American Rockwell, cost-plus contract

Done.

• That the feathers came from the USAF Academy falcon is now mentioned twice.

I think the contexts are different enough that they are acceptable. After all, Scott was only seen to drop one feather, and he had brought two (he had planned a test run but didn't get around to it).

• "The demands of the training strained Worden's marriage" I think we're drawing a long bow here; there were separated for over a year before the divorce.

Scott mentions it in that context. And remember before the 15 training, all three were the backup crew for 12. So the training, all in all, was 2 years plus.

• In "space suits" I'd mention that Scott's suit had the red stripes on it, which allows the reader to identify him and Irwin in the photographs.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Changes were also made to the S-II to stop pogo oscillations" They didn't though. Worden felt they were severe; Scott felt they were much less than on Apollo 9. Suggest "dampen" instead of "stop".

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Irwin died in 1991 from heart problems he blamed on Apollo 15; but Scott and Worden are still alive.

  Very true. A number of sources suggest the connection to Irwin's death (see Kraft's memoir, for example) but this article draws no conclusion.

• "the lander settled back at an angle of 6.9 degrees and to the left of 8.6 degrees." Did Scott consider lifting off again and landing a short distance away? The descent stage still had plenty of fuel.

  I see no source that mentions the possibility. Given the fact that the engine bell was deformed by the landing, even if that was possible, it probably wasn't worth the risk.--20:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Astronauts drove corvettes because they could lease them for a dollar a year from the local dealer in Florida.

  Jim Rathmann, I assume. Scott seems to have bought this one as he mentions in the ALSJ that he later sold it to Ed Fendell. I don't think it's really necessary to add anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, Rathmann. I bet he sold them at a premium as driven by an astronaut. (That's what i would have done.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• There are some wordings that still seem awkward to me (but don't feel obliged to change on my account):
  1. I think "West Point has greater recognition than USMA but your choice. (I note that although Scott is younger than Worden, he was a year ahead of him at West Point.)

     Scott spent that single year at Michigan but I gather four at West Point. The description of Worden's education is phrased to make it clear the USMA is West Point. I don't think it would work as well the other way around.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  2. "Site Selection Committees" Was there more than one? Should they still be capitalised then?
  3. "Falcon was aligned so that the astronauts were on their backs and thus could not see the lunar surface" They were of course still standing up.

     I've phrased it as "upright".

  4. "With Falcon due to remain on the lunar surface for almost three days" Earth days. The whole mission was done in a lunar morning, as the days are 28 days long over there.

     I know we've had this discussion but I think it's not really worth putting "Earth days" in there and it's probably a bit pedantic.

     Sure. No worries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  5. "of 14 known American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts who died" Robert Henry Lawrence Jr. was unknown because he was black, right? (I would just delete "known" myself.)

     Scott mentions Valentin Bondarenko and Grigori Nelyubov, whose deaths were not widely known.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm up to date. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)'

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08

Coming soon to a FAC near you. Kees08 (Talk) 20:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

• The phrases outside their lander and on extravehicular activity (EVA) are redundant in: They spent 18​1⁄2 hours outside their lander on extravehicular activity (EVA). Suggest They spent 18​1⁄2 hours performing extravehicular activities (EVAs)
• Introduce acronym: operating the sensors in the SIM bay
• For some reason, rephrasing These instruments collected data to This instrument suite collected data or This suite of instruments collected data

I've recast it slightly. While I agree that "outside the lander" is redundant, I think the reader needs to be taken by the hand a bit here so I've rephrased rather than cut. The others I've done more or less as I think you want them.

Background

• Ranges are endashes: missions (Apollo 16-20).

Avoided.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Crew and key Mission Control personnel

• In the first column of both tables, sentence case should be used (Command module pilot for example), since it is not being used as a title (Command Module Pilot Alfred Worden).
• We have been a bit inconsistent in how we organize this section. It is not required to be consistent; but I wanted to give you the options. In order of preference, I prefer Apollo 8, Apollo 11, and then Apollo 15. The last edit I did to Apollo 8 took out what I considered to be over-sectioning. I think the tables are a little overkill too, for what little information they provide, but I have been afraid to take them out for fear of backlash. Your call on how you want it all to look, those are options.

I like Apollo 8 too but let me sleep on how to accomplish it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've adapted the Apollo 8 format slightly.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Lowercase command module pilot and as Command Module Pilot of Apollo 9

Done.

• Could be worth adding a sentence about how Gemini 8 almost killed him

I think I'll let it stand. I'm trying to be brief here. Armstrong only gets a shout-out because he is Armstrong.

• Probably should call it University of Michigan again from Michigan in 1957

"Michigan" is an acceptable shortened form, especially on second and subsequent usage, in American English.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right per their style guide, which says "Because it can cause confusion with the state of Michigan, avoid referring to U-M as “Michigan” unless the context is obvious." Kees08 (Talk) 03:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think if we include this, it is worth including that the backup crew for Apollo 15 would have been the prime crew for Apollo 18 (and thus flown to the Moon), but since it was cancelled they moved Schmitt to 17 (which of course made many people happy and many people unhappy). This would be the first Apollo backup crew to not fly to the Moon. Schmitt would be the first member of Group 4 to fly in space; he was the only astronaut from that group to make it to the Moon, with Apollo 17.

  I saw you worked in a bit of this; it might be good to include the full bit that if normal crew rotation followed, the backup crew for Apollo 15 would have been the prime crew for the cancelled Apollo 18 mission. Then go into the bits about their first missions (for 2/3) being after the Apollo program ended. Kees08 (Talk)

Alright, done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I try to avoid just listing out names if I can; is there anything to say about Apollo 14 using 4 CAPCOMs and then Apollo 15 using 9? Presumably something drove a change to more than double the CAPCOMs.

I've never read anything in particular. Obviously the greater emphasis on science might have led to more. Some of them might have been brief, I've read most of the transcripts and I don't remember Shepard coming on the loop. I've inserted that Gordon most likely would have commanded 18 and that Brand later flew on ASTP and the STS, as a way of having a snippet about each backup astronaut. I don't think we need the whole hoorah over the crew for 17, that's part of 17's story.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Section looks much better. I found this on CAPCOMs for the mission in case it is useful to you. Kees08 (Talk)\

Planning and training

• Could try to change Geologist Harrison Schmitt and other astronauts who were scientists advocated to Geologist Harrison Schmitt and other scientist-astronauts advocated

Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Trying other nouns like politician (often met with politician disinterest, often met with zoologist disinterest) does not sound good, maybe make it "They were often met with disinterest from the pilot-astronauts" or similar They were often met with astronaut disinterest, or found science displaced by higher priorities.

OK.

• Mission and Commander should be capitalized since it is a title for Lovell right? Apollo 13 mission commander Jim Lovell

OK.

• Lower case command module pilot since it is not used as title, and should there be a comma after Mattingly to make it an appositive phrase? prime crew's Command Module Pilot, Ken Mattingly to inform

OK.

• ", and the first Lunar Roving Vehicle" sounds weird to me, if it sounds fine to you keep it. Apollo 15 into a J mission, with a longer stay on the lunar surface, and the first Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV).

OK.

• Can you scan and email me the page in the book that supports this? This change was welcomed by Scott,[28] who according to David West Reynolds in his account of the Apollo Program, was "something more than a hotshot pilot. Scott had the spirit of a true explorer", one determined to get the most from the J mission.

You have to send me an email so I can reply with an attachment.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Are both 'froms' needed? including from planned experiments and from the rover,

I thought so. I think omitting the second one leaves things too abrupt.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hardware

• Introduce the acronym SIM both here and in the introduction. in the service module's SIM bay.

I did it in the body, but for lede purposes, I think the link should suffice.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I prefer microgravity over zero-gravity, which Weightlessness#Zero-g,_"zero_gravity",_accelerometers partially explains, but essentially it means that while we are trying to get rid of gravity (zero gravity vector), we are not, therefore microgravity is the accurate term. If using zero gravity increases accessibility, I suppose it is fine, but I would love to see wider adoption of the term microgravity.
• Alternatives for this: Once all the various components had been installed on the Saturn V, Once the major subassemblies were integrated into the Saturn V, After the Saturn V vehicle was fully integrated,.
• We both know what mascons are, but maybe include a couple words for the average reader to explain (even using mass concentrations would help) In addition to measuring magnetic fields, the satellite contained sensors to study the Moon's mascons
• For this ref, I normally use NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive or NSSDCA, though it might just be my preference. "Apollo 15 Subsatellite". NASA. Retrieved December 21, 2018.

The above are done, and I've avoided the term "zero gravity".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Mission highlights

• This is not very chronological w/ the crew waking and suiting up. Was a bit jarring to read. Apollo 15 was launched on July 26, 1971, at 9:34 AM EDT from the Kennedy Space Center at Merritt Island, Florida.

No, but it is often good to lead off with the big event and then discuss relatively minor issues that surrounded it, even preceding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Link explosive cords to Detonating cord (as an aside, usually the det cord goes to another separation mechanism. an analogy is that the det cord is like an electrical cable, providing a way for electricity (or a detonation wave) to reach the mechanism)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Turns out they use mild detonating fuse (MDF) from what I can tell, which is close enough to det cord. Explains the messy separation I saw during the Apollo 11 documentary. No more actions to take here, just thought you might find the explosives handbook somehwat relevant and interesting. Kees08 (Talk) 07:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• I know I am being pedantic, but the mission was not there; the spacecraft was though. At 000:11:36 into the mission, the S-IVB engine shut down, leaving Apollo 15 in its planned parking orbit in Low Earth Orbit. The mission remained there
• Presumably we have the information to be exact; if we do, we might as well be exact. some 2 hours and 40 minutes
• Should one of those dots be a colon? At 002:50.02.6 into the mission
• You have introduced this acronym, to at least some extent, twice already The command and service module (CSM) and the lunar module
• So foreign object debris (FOD) was causing a short on the switch? If I recall correctly, the wire was fine until they were in a microgravity environment, which allowed it to float around into the switch. Some of that may be worth mentioning. Also, was their caution in manually operating it needed? After the mission returned, the malfunction proved to be caused by a tiny bit of wire trapped within the switch.
• Maybe this is more for me...but here is how I read it with my background. They opened a valve on the LM, allowed it to vent to space, and supplied nitrogen gas as a pressurant. They then switched from nitrogen to oxygen, to make the atmosphere breathable again. Now, this probably is not right, but that is how it reads to me, so the wording might need changed. The most confusing part to me is removing contamination..what contamination? Were they worried about leaky thrusters with toxic propellants? Sorry, rambling a bit on this one, and maybe I am obtuse, the whole concept of the statement is confusing to me. After purging and renewing the LM's atmosphere to eliminate any contamination, (you wrote it so you know it best, but looks like this is the source from ALSJ? [At launch, the LM is filled with ambient air at sea level pressure. This is vented away via the open overhead depress valve as the LM ascends through the atmosphere. After the CSM docks with the LM, its cabin is pressurized to about 34 kPa (5 psi) using the CSM's oxygen supply, again through the open depress valve. No replenishing is done after this, and the LM's atmosphere is allowed to leak away. Valuable information about leak rates are obtained in this way, which is essential for calculating LM's oxygen usage later in the flight. Then, before the first entry to the LM for housekeeping activities, the LM's cabin is replenished after dumping most of the air left in it. This ensures that if any contamination does exist as a result of a fault in the LM since launch - perhaps a plumbing leak or an electrical fire - it will have been flushed away before the crew enter.
• I see on ALSJ they were not sure what caused the breakage; was it discussed in post-flight reports? The crew discovered a broken outer cover on the Range/Range Rate tapemeter.
• Partially my fault, but second time mass concentrations is linked (incidentally you could call them mascons this time) became apparent to Mission Control that mass concentrations in the Moon
• This is lower than the pericynthion (the low point of orbit) from before. Is this right; how/when did they drop altitude? (a bit suspiciously, they initiate their PDI burn at that exact distance) about 25 minutes late, at an altitude of 5.8 nautical miles (10.7 km; 6.7 mi).
• I would phrase it "made any further maneuvering unnecessary", but might just be stylistic variation. Lunar Roving Vehicle made unnecessary any further maneuvering.

Okay. I have made it the Lunar surface section. Sorry for taking so long, and I hope my comments do not imply that I think the article is in poor condition; I think it is a great piece of work so far. Kees08 (Talk) 08:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Pedantic, but 'their first Moon walk' the crew began preparation for the first Moon walk.
• Who is Fendell, is that level of detail necessary? from Houston by NASA's Ed Fendell.
• Could use excursions instead of 'ones' if you want. worked during the second and third ones
• Also, I am down to second and third EVAs, and I do not believe there has been any mention of the range of the lunar rover. If I recall correctly, the astronauts were limited in driving the rover by their life support systems, that is, the total distance from the lunar module decreased over time. If I remember that right, and if it is not in the article anywhere, it should probably be mentioned.
• Complemented? which was complimented
• A boom or the boom? also on a boom in the hope

Controversies

• How much is that in today's money? Despite the successful mission, the careers of the crew were tarnished by a deal they had made before the flight to carry postal covers to the Moon in exchange for about $7,000 each,
• I think this sentence can be read that permission was required, and that permission was not required, so maybe rephrase it. No permission had been received from Slayton to carry the covers, as required.

Visibility from space

• You could include information from Lunar_Flag_Assembly#Current_status. I have no opinion on if you should or not, wanted to give you the option.

I might include it if it were known with certainty the status, but they appear not to be sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

For now, the certainty is uncertainty. I leave it to your discretion whether to include or not. Kees08 (Talk) 07:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• Apollo 15 is the only Apollo mission that has subarticles: Journey to the Moon, Solo operations, On the lunar surface, Return to Earth. I think those articles should be AfD'ed. If you agree, it would be nice to verify the information in those articles is included in this article, otherwise if/when they are AfD'ed (I will nominate them if you think they are excessive detail like I do), integrating the text of those articles into this one will mess with the agreed upon prose in this nomination. We could always go the other way with it and create the subarticles for other long Apollo missions like Apollos 16 and 17. I cannot make you do any of this, but if they get AfD'ed it could save someone the work later of reworking all the prose in this article. So consider this long rambling paragraph extra credit. Kees08 (Talk) 21:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think every detail from them needs to be in the main article. They could probably do with more specific referencing, but they do serve to provide details this article doesn't. I'd rather keep them and maybe improve them down the road.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Another general comment, can we delete or convert the Apollo15series template into a navigation box? The shape and size is pretty awkward, and a navigation box seems like the perfect substitute for it. Kees08 (Talk) 07:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I find navboxes inconveniently located and prefer these.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice if File:Apollo 15 CSM (14412950693).jpg used a NASA source instead of coming from a museum's Flickr page. Not required though, since we all know it is PD. Kees08 (Talk) 18:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Alrighty, I think I am done. Let me know when changes have been implemented or if you have any rebuttals. Kees08 (Talk) 01:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack

• that absent air resistance, objects drop at the same rate. – some word missing here?

I don't think so.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Harrison H. Schmitt – is introduced and linked thrice, one time without middle initial.

  This appears to be taken care of Kees08 (Talk) 07:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Range/Range Rate tapemeter – what is this? Would it be possible to explain it in a gloss?

Distance and rate of closing to the object being tracked, principally the CSM. If reviewers have a better way of putting it, I'd be happy to see it. I'll add sometihing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Starts at about 5000 feet – please add kilometers here as well.

  I used meters, hope that is okay Kees08 (Talk) 07:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• it came into view,[68] They were able to see Elbow Crater – was a full stop intended here?

  Yes, I changed it to a full stop Kees08 (Talk) 07:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• noticed irregularities in the heartbeats of both Scott and Irwin – any speculations on the cause of these irregularities?

Shortage of potassium, dehydration (Irwin's in suit drink bag did not operate properly). Let me see what I can find on this in a nutshell.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Google Moon – Imho not appropriate for the "see also" section, but maybe as a weblink if it is really so important.

  Agreed and was going to recommend the same. Kees08 (Talk)

I think that got bulk-added to a bunch of the Apollo articles. I'll remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Otherwise not much to criticize, very good read overall. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I took care of a couple of the points; looks like the heartbeats still need addressed when you get time. Feel free to revert or rework any of the changes I made. Kees08 (Talk) 07:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The heartbeats are done. I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Did you have any other comments on this one? Kees08 (Talk) 22:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review

• As brought up in Solrad 1's FAC and a bit here (where it is discussed that inaccuracies have been found in Wade's work), I would recommend replacing Encyclopedia Astronautica with either NASA or peer-reviewed sources. For example, at least a couple can be replaced with NSSDCA. If you run into a problem replacing the references I can try to help out. RS is a grey area; I personally would (and have) use Astronautix for homework assignments, but would not (and have not) use it for real engineering work.

What this is cited for are, for the most part, statistics and registration numbers. Is there reason to believe these would be inaccurate?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I keep hearing more that the site has more inaccuracies in it than it should. I have not personally found any, but I also do not check, I just replace all the citations with others (okay, I suppose I do check a little) and then add it to the External links at the bottom of the page. I think better RS's exist for at least most of the information, and it would be good to use them instead of (or in complement to) Wade. Kees08 (Talk) 08:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Very well. Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• This can move to the bibliography Orloff, Richard W. (September 2004) [First published 2000]. "Table of Contents". Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference. NASA History Division, Office of Policy and Plans. NASA History Series. Washington, D.C.: NASA. ISBN 978-0-16-050631-4. LCCN 00061677. NASA SP-2000-4029. Archived from the original on August 23, 2007. Retrieved July 18, 2009.

Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Date formatting of ref 5 is not consistent; make sure all the others are

That's changed and I will check for others.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 1, 6, and 10 should be able to be combined (or at least made to look the same)

I think they look the same now.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Preferably replace with a more reliable source; if you keep it though, make it formatted the same as the other reference Wade, Mark. "NASA Group 4 – 1965". Encyclopedia Astronautix. Archived from the original on April 29, 2010. Retrieved December 23, 2018.

I found it rather hard getting a source to cite that exact text, so I've rewritten with a different source.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is from SP-4029 so the ref is incomplete Flight Directors". NASA. Archived from the original on December 26, 2017. Retrieved December 22, 2018.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• That's quite the page range to backup one sentence of the article, which makes it look like OR at a glance. Is there a reference that says that explicitly so you do not have to cite five pages for that one fact? Orloff & Harland, pp. 279, 327, 393–394, 426.

Cut.--09:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• endash on date range?Reynolds, David West (2002). Apollo: The Epic Journey to the Moon, 1963-1972. San Diego, CA: Tehabi Books Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7603-4452-1.

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Couple of weird looking Compton references; it is SP-4214, and I think the reference could be more complete for those Compton, online chapter The Lunar Rover and New Experiments Archived September 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
• At least once you have the publisher of something on nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov as NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive, and at least once you have it as NASA. I prefer they all become the former, but as long as they are consistent it is fine.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• For what it is worth to anyone watching this, I spot checked several references as I went and the article properly summarized the information from the source.
• Sometimes the sources use D.C., other times DC; be consistent with one of the two.

Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That should be it. Let me know if you disagree with any of the points above. Kees08 (Talk) 08:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Working on these, but may not finish until tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I know this discussion is technically supposed to be only about this article, but I concur with Kees08 regarding the four subarticles. All are completely lacking in-line citations so I think it's inappropriate for this article to even link to them via {main} in this state. Your excellent expansion of this article appears to have been written independently so it doesn't quite follow summary style of the subarticles. Reywas92^Talk 08:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I mostly mined them for images. I did not use them for the structure of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm up to date in everything except filling out the Compton references in the source review. I'll get to that later on today.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Out of curiosity, did you end up finding Encyclopedia Astronautica reliable? I thought I saw some numbers change slightly but I did not look real close. Kees08 (Talk) 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been open over six weeks and I think the review has probably gone as far as it needs to, and that this last point is not enough to hold up promotion. Wehwalt, I did see a few duplinks using Evad's checker; I doubt they're necessary in an article that is not overly long so pls have a look post-promotion and rationalise as necessary. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2019 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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