Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 9/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 29 June 2019 [1].

Apollo 9[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Kees08 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the more forgotten of the Apollo missions, but still an important stepping stone on the way to the Moon.Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby query by Support from Iridescent[edit]

Driveby query—I'll review this properly when I get the chance—but NASA public relations could not argue the names were inappropriate puzzles me and will presumably puzzle other readers, and ought to be clarified; why couldn't the PR department have ordered them to use Liberty and Opportunity or some such as the callsigns for the modules, if they weren't happy with their multi-billion-dollar program being called Gumdrop? ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source says basically what we put, plus the additional information that PR weren't overly impressed with the choices.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we can only go with what the sources say—it just seems odd that NASA PR didn't intervene given how closely the US space program was micromanaged. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another source, Deke! (page 225-226), says "Nine would also be the first mission in years in which spacecraft had names instead of numbers. You needed them for radio communications when the command module and lunar module were separated. The command module was going to be Gumdrop and the lunar module was going to be Spider. NASA public relations people like Julian Scheer hated the names; I guess they weren't dignified enough. But the crew had picked them."
Moonshot (pages 227-228) says "Because two spacecraft were involved, to avoid radio call-sign confusion NASA allowed the astronauts to name their ships, lifting a ban imposed after Gus Grissom had tagged his gemini capsule Molly Brown. Some officials were not too pleased with the names selected by the Apollo 9 team, considered them not worthy of this noble effort. Assessing the shapes of the two vehicles, the astronauts named the lunar module Spider and the cone-shaped command module Gumdrop."
Two Sides to the Moon (pages 233-234) says "For some time there had been people in the astronaut corps pushing for us to be allowed to give our spacecraft names. 'No names, only mission number designations,' NASA had said. They gave no particular reason. At times, I think, they just lost sight of the human dimension of the program. But when it came to Apollo 9 we had two spacecraft, the Lunar Module and the Command Module. To communicate between the two, we had to have separate call signs. During training we had nicknamed the Lunar Module "Spider" because of its spindly legs and Spider became its call sign. The Command Module had arrived at the Cape on the back of a truck, wrapped up like candy in light blue Cellophane, earning it the call sign Gumdrop. When the media got wind of these call signs they adopted them as names for the two spacecraft. Bowing to the inevitable, NASA allowed all Apollo crews after us to name their spacecraft. The crew of Apollo 10 used Snoopy and Charlie Brown. After that NASA got a little more esoteric, insisting that the names bear more relation to the missions, hence the use of Columbia and Eagle for Apollo 11's historic mission. But there we were: Gumdrop and Spider. Five days into the mission and the time had come to fly the two vehicles separately."
Based on that wall of text, I removed Young from the list of who named Gemini 3 (it was in reference to Grissom's previous spacecraft sinking in the ocean and a play called The Unsinkable Molly Brown, which I think I should add since readers probably do not know...?). It also matches the Moonshot source. I changed up the wording, since I suspect the PR department did argue and just happened to lose the argument. What we do know is that they did not like the name, so I rephrased to "Personnel in NASA public relations thought the names were too informal, but the call signs ultimately gained official sanction." Addressing the original point brought up by the reviewer, NASA did tighten their rules on naming starting with Apollo 11. I could go either way on keeping that in there, as it is only tangentially relevant, but I think it helps the narrative and any confusion over permission. Do the two of you agree with my edits, and do you think I should add in the bit about the Unsinkable Molly Brown? I think it is confusing to the average reader why Molly Brown would cause NASA to stop allowing astronauts name their spacecraft for a long period of time. Kees08 (Talk) 01:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Molly Brown may remain in the public consciousness as she is depicted in the film Titanic.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I am one of the three people on Earth that has not seen that movie yet. It should be fine as-is then. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, proper review. This is the version on which I'm commenting; no image or source checks conducted. I'm assuming all the technical detail is correct as sentences like Efficiency was increased in the S-II second stage with uprated J-2 engines, and through a closed-loop propellant utilization system rather than Apollo 8's open-loop system make my brain hurt.

  • Pet peeve and I'm not sure what (or if) the MOS says about it; as with many abbreviations (including FAC), of a LM jars with me when skim-reading as my brain tries to autocorrect it to "an LM". This is certainly not something over which I'd oppose, but maybe reword to avoid it even if it means saying "lunar module" in full; I'm sure Wikipedia won't fall apart if an article included an extra nine characters.
    • Technically it is in four spots, so 36 characters! I will leave it to Wehwalt to come to a decision on it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone to "an" in the one case where I felt I could not smooth it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I'm sorry; I've tried to be a good collaborator and go along with the Wikipedia style consensus deprecating the capitalizations classically used in the Apollo program for over 50 years, but this is too much when today's style consensus overturns something like this. The Apollo Command Module page explains (in the lead sentence and the Design phase subsection of History) that the lunar module was historically called by the pronouncable acronym LEM which was later shortened to LM, but everyone developed the habit of continuing to pronounce LM as "lem". Thus "a LM" ("a lem") is what in fact everybody said fifty years ago. (Or would you like to go and change that page too?) Changing it now, encouraging people to pronounce "an L M" amounts to original research, contradicting established practice. My apologies to everyone born too late to remember the original, or from outside the US. Please change it back. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note explaining the pronunciation on it (I thought we had it in other FA articles but I struggled to find any instances). I changed it back to 'a LM'. Admittedly, even though I know it is pronounced LEM I still read it as LM each time I see it. I could see arguments for it both ways; hopefully this is a good enough compromise. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admit also to hearing it as "el-em" in my head and also don't hear the previous program as "Geminee". Well, guess I don't have The Right Stuff. Is all this satisfactory, JustinTime55?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. Thanks. (As for the pronunciation of "Gemini", there's apparently ambiguous usage in different regions of the US. I too always herd "Gemin-eye" in all the public media. The astronauts apparently favored "Gemi-nee", especially Gus Grissom. I remember when I was younger, hearing a tape from the Gemini 4 EVA when Gus was struggling to get Jim McDivitt to tell Ed White to stop the EVA. I thought it sounded like he was saying "Jimmy-por, get back in!" which of course made no sense. He was just slurring "Geminee 4" real fast.) JustinTime55 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're happy with it, would you mind striking your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If at all possible try to avoid starting a sentence with "But"; I'm not sure if the MOS explicitly bans it, but it Just Looks Wrong.
    • It was not needed in the one sentence I saw it in; removed. Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • their planned February 21 mission, which [Grissom's crew] named Apollo 1—our Apollo 1 article says this as well, but neither here nor there does who named it actually seem to be sourced (unless Scott & Leonov, pp. 193–195. serves as the source for the entire sentence). In either case, given that the first Gemini flight was Gemini 1 the convention had obviously been established by then.
    • Hooooo boy. At some point, I had seen so many different stories about it I wanted to document it on my userpage. Unfortunately I stopped working on Apollo 1 stuff around then, so still do not have a clear answer, but User:Kees08/Apollo 1 has a source that says they were referring to themselves as the Apollo 1 crew (I think before it was officially named that..but not sure). Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We could simply say, "to be called Apollo 1", which avoids the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe the statement is accurate as written; I updated my userpage linked above recently to show more examples of how it was named. Kees08 (Talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme pedantry alert: re the first Apollo crewed mission to go into space would be Apollo 7, was Apollo 7 not the first Apollo crewed mission, period?
    • Technically Apollo 1 was, but did not make it to space. Kees08 (Talk) 22:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • John F. Kennedy's goal of people walking on the Moon and returning safely to Earth seems to me to be a Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment case; readers can surely assume that Kennedy's goal wasn't for people to walk on the Moon and die on re-entry?
    • There was a bit of discussion at the A-class review of Apollo 11 regarding how much we should emphasize the 'safely to Earth' bit. Looks like we ended up leaving it in five places (once was the intro). I suppose that essay could apply, but for whatever reason 'safely to Earth' was heavily emphasized during the Space Race, so we should probably keep it here. It was even mentioned by Nixon when he was talking to them on the Moon! If you have strong feelings one way or another let me know, but I would be inclined to keep it. Kees08 (Talk) 22:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've always taken the "safe return" to exclude the early scenarios where someone would be landed on the Moon and maybe they'd get him an ascent rocket later. Just soft landing someone on the Moon without worrying about getting him home is a less complex thing, and Kennedy's goal was more than that, to bring the person home safely, meaning you need the two-stage LM among other things which complicated the task. So yes, I would leave it in as an integral part of it, though it is sometimes overlooked.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand not linking Chicago but linking Neptune, New Jersey, but in that case do we really need to link San Antonio, Texas?
  • McDivitt's crew was among the best trained ever to fly—is this within the Apollo program or within the space program generally, and is it still considered the case or were they just the best-trained crew up to that point?
    • Wehwalt: I think unless other sources say the same thing (they might!) we should include a caveat, something like 'according to Burgess and French'. I will see what I can find in other sources tonight. Kees08 (Talk) 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done something with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue about "stand-up EVA" as I raised on Scott's biography; the general readers who will see this article if it's TFA will likely have no clue what it means, and assume it means "standing on the lunar surface". (The article is also inconsistent between "stand-up" and "standup".)
    • Good catch for both; made them all stand-up and added the note explaining what it is. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same note, we have During his stand-up EVA, Scott did not wear a PLSS but EVA hasn't been mentioned up to this point.
    • Did you mean extravehicular activity had not been defined properly? I just added that into the article. Kees08 (Talk) 01:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The astronauts slept well, but complained of being woken by non-English transmissions, possibly in Chinese—I appreciate the sources may not exist, but with the benefit of hindsight have we any idea what was going on here? Were the Chinese intentionally trying to sabotage the mission, or was NASA accidentally using the same frequency as Radio Shanghai?
    • I can find no other source that mentions this; the closest I got was that they were awoken that night due to a hydrogen system alarm. Do either of you have access to NYT? I would love to be able to read the article. I am inclined to remove it at this point, but will not until I can see what the NYT article says. Kees08 (Talk) 02:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can send it to you but you have to send me an email first through the system as I can't send an attachment through the system. It says as follows "They complained, however, of some strange radio noises awakening them during the night when they passed over Southeast Asia. They had apparently picked up a flight control tower, perhaps in the war zone of Vietnam. (paragraph) 'Seems like we were going over some station that was transmitting from a tower clearing people to land,' Colonel Scott said, adding "and the first couple sounded somewhat like Chinese.'"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, with that I was able to find it in the transcript (around page 76, PDF page 78. At work now so will look at it after. Kees08 (Talk) 21:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find anything about the cause of this, all I see is that they turned off their radio overnight to prevent it from waking them again. Not sure if we should include that or not. Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically color, if you know what I mean. Material to interest the reader in what is necessarily a rather dry article about one of the most obscure Apollo missions, if not the most. I don't think we need say they turned off the radio the next night.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re NASA officials predicted that Spider would remain in orbit for 18 years, given that it actually re-entered 11 years later, have we any idea why their prediction was so far out?
    • Hrm....I have JSTOR access but for some reason the cited article will not load for me. What does load is Drew Ex Machina and Apollo by the Numbers (page 57), which both say it was expected to be in orbit for five years and that it stayed in orbit longer than predicted (with no reasoning specified). Wehwalt, do you have access to the journal that says 18 years? I will keep perusing sources to see if other numbers pop up... Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further evidence that five years was the prediction, page 7-3 of the mission report says "The final orbit for the ascent stage was 3760.9 by 126.6 miles, with a lifetime of 5 years." I am inclined to change it unless Wehwalt has any conflicting evidence (including the journal I cannot seem to open). Kees08 (Talk) 00:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken. It actually says "Officials predict the ascent stage will not reenter earth's atmosphere for 19 years." I've modified it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are all minor queries and "this isn't entirely clear to me" issues rather than anything problematic (under normal circumstances I'd just put them on the talk page, but I'll list them here to avoid other reviewers having to repeat them), and I have no issue with supporting regardless of whether they're addressed. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Seems like each image is in a reasonable space and also reasonably licensed (File:Apollo 9 Command Module.jpg and [2] resemble each other, but the latter is slightly cropped compared to the former, so not likely its origin). No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was inclined to agree with you, but looking at their other uploads, the dates are reasonably far apart that they may have visited all those museums, and none of the others match Alamy stock photos. Additionally, Tineye says 'first found' for the Commons photo Oct 20, 2012, and the Alamy photo on Dec 19, 2017. I just realized I misread what you wrote, and you thought the Commons file was the original. My last point was going to be the cropping issue, but I see you already raised that. So we are in agreeance! Thanks for the review; I have been considering swapping a couple of photos and if I do I will give you a ping to re-review them. Also, I will be adding alt-text throughout the nomination as I find time. Kees08 (Talk) 21:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Apologies for changing some, but we swapped out three photos (listed below). Let me know if you need anything changed with the new photos (I still need to add alts). Kees08 (Talk) 05:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! I didn't catch that you replaced the image of the crew training for AS-258 (in CSM-101) with what is obviously a later one, probably in the spacecraft they flew in (CSM-104). That picture was deliberately added because it drives home the point that McDivitt's crew started their training before the Apollo 1 fire. It makes a difference, because even the Block II spacecraft didn't have the anti-fire fixes made after the fire, and they were going to fly in a older version of the spacesuit without the anti-fire fixes (notice the blue color). I would really like this picture swapped back. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was going back and forth on that when I was deciding, for those reasons. The reason I went with the one in the article now is because I wanted a photo that showcased the 'blue gumdrop'. I think what I might do is revert the picture as you suggested, and then replace File:AS09-20-3104 (21315590814).jpg with this gumdrop photo. We lose the interior shot of the capsule, but I think illustrating both the names is encyclopedia-ly important to the article. Thoughts? Wehwalt? Kees08 (Talk) 20:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move the one of the CM interior to later in the article, maybe in place of the CM on the carrier? I mean, we have the shot of the CM in the museum right after that, we can spare the carrier shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the carrier photo made more sense chronologically, but it does not really matter, so I made the switch you suggested. Kees08 (Talk) 06:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe put back the carrier photo, and put the one of the CM interior in place of the one showing the LM on the S-IVB? That one isn't so wonderful at thumbnail size.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by SchroCat[edit]

  • Support. I had my say at PR, and a further review now shows the article has been strengthened even further. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Verifiability
  • Ref 5: I don't understand the attribution to "Jonathan McDowell" ("Jonathan's Space Pages"). The source is a wall of figures from http://planet4589.org/space/log/satcat.txt. What information from the infobox is this source confirming?
    • Since the apogee, perigee, inclination, and period change over time, a single point in time is selected for orbital parameters, known as the epoch. In this case, on March 5, 1969, the parameters are as described in the infobox, but a different date would yield different parameters. To use the page, use ctrl+F with the COSPAR ID (1969-018A). The three numbers below it (204 x 497 x 33.83) are the perigee, apogee, and inclination (in km, km, and degrees, respectively). The 91.55 minute period is the far right column. Let me know if you need anything else on this, hope that helps. Kees08 (Talk) 05:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's clear! I still don't understand why the site is attributed to McDowell, but... Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links
  • Bibliography: Brooks et al 1979: the main link does not seem to be working ("unable to connect")
    • To here? Works on my machine, let me know if you meant a different link Kees08 (Talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
  • Format issues:
  • Ref 16: template error
  • Ref 33: "p. 3-2" is a little confusing – looks like a p. range, but isn't; it's how the report is paginated, unfortunately. Same issue on other Mission Report citations, but I suspect that little can be done.
    • Ref 80: space missing between pages nos
  • Quality and reliability:
  • Ref 54: What makes "Jonathan's Space Report" a high quality, reliable source per FA criteria?
    • Well, besides the owner's good taste in definitions for the boundary of space, he gets cited in the media, like Space.com and The New York Times for example. I bolstered one of his citations with a book citation, but I prefer his more-exact definition of SEVA so I would like to keep it. For the orbital parameters in the infobox, I can use his space report or NSSDC, I do not have a preference. Kees08 (Talk) 05:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise ref 97: "Heavens-Above"?
    • That falls under the 'I think it is because it is an often used free satellite tracker but I do not have an actual good reason' category. So I switched it up with n2yo.com, which in their terms of use say n2yo.com is a website providing mainly satellite tracking Services. Thousands of objects can be tracked in real time. The software used for tracking is using mainly space surveillance data provided by "Space Track", a website consisting of a partial catalog of observations collected by the US Space Surveillance Network, operated by US Air Force Space Command (AFSPC). AFSPC does not make any warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of the data provided and does not endorse any product or service that utilizes its data. n2yo.com is an authorized redistributor and the license is renewed annually. In special circumstances for a few satellites the traking data ("keplerian elements") are derived from public sources (monitoring or visual observation). Which means they use data from the US Air Force Space Command. Kees08 (Talk) 05:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I believe I attempted to address all your points above. Thanks for the review, let me know your responses. Kees08 (Talk) 05:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Looks good - a couple of minor quibbles...

  • , its major purposes were to qualify the LM for lunar orbit operations and to show that it and the CSM could separate and move well apart, before rendezvousing and docking again - "purposes" reads oddly here..."aims"? "accomplishments"? - also "qualify" seems an odd verb to choose.
  • Apollo 9 was deemed an unqualified success - this sentence strikes me as redundant and possibly labouring the point as the next sentence says the same thing (as a quote)
Thanks, Cas. I think I've gotten those. Let us know what you think. I've piped "qualify", the article on flight qualify won't be at FAC anytime soon but it will do until something better comes along.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I did not know that use of the verb. the link is good. All good now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review ask support.

Comments by Praemonitus[edit]

Support: Thanks for addressing my concerns. Overall it looks to be FA quality. Praemonitus (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a couple of minor quibbles:

  • "The next task was to demonstrate that two docked spacecraft could be maneuvered by one engine." Was the SM SPS engine used for this? It seems likely, but is unclear.
Yes, the SPS. I will add it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article could use a good quality illustration showing the stack formed by the CM/SM docked with the LM. Is it possible to add something like this?
I don't know where such a photo could be taken from. The astronauts could not have done so, since they did not go away from the stack to a place where they could. Kees08, any thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An illustration isn't a photo. Praemonitus (talk)

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Let me look through the Apollo 9 press kit and mission report and see what I can find.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Such a drawing certainly exists, and is currently in the Apollo 13 article. The CSM/LM configuration is fairly generic and is not labeled as exclusive to Apollo 13. Why not use that? JustinTime55 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than the one in the Apollo 9 press kit which is fairly crude by later standards. So I'll import it. Thanks for the suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praemonitus, thank you for the review and the support. It is nice to have reviewers who know one end of a Saturn V from the other!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, we're up to date and there is a likely consensus for promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2019 (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_9/archive2&oldid=904098374"