Talk:Apollo program/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I will be taking this one. The article is large, and there are some bits that still need work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The article is large, and there are some bits that still need work
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * See below
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * See below
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * All images are appropriately licenced
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * All images are appropriately licenced
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Grammar/Spelling
 * lbf -> pounds force. Or explain. ✅ JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Dish" should be italised ✅ JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Atlantic ocean" -> "Atlantic Ocean" ✅ JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Pacific ocean" -> "Pacific Ocean" ✅ JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "president Richard Nixon" -> "President Richard Nixon" ✅ JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

✅ JustinTime55 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Broken links
 * http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03SpaceEffort09121962.htm
 * http://kscpartnerships.ksc.nasa.gov/techCap/altitude.htm
 * http://whitehousetapes.net/clips/1962_1121_apollo/


 * Missing references
 * NASA expansion - second and fourth paragraphs ✅ (with fourth paragraph, still need second) Kees08 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Manned Spacecraft Center - first paragraph ✅ JustinTime55 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Choosing a mission mode - first and third paragraphs
 * Can you clarify what you want cited in these paragraphs? Might have already been done. Kees08 (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Saturn IB - first paragraph ✅ Kees08 (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Saturn V - second paragraph ✅ Kees08 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lunar mission profile - all paragraphs ✅ A single reference sufficiently verifies all "paragraphs"; this is really more of a table with graphics than a section of prose paragraphs, which makes one continuous profile. I do not believe that requiring a cite at each individual paragraph is reasonable. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Profile variations - first, second, third paragraphs ✅ Kees08 (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Preparation for manned flight - first, second and third paragraphs ✅ Kees08 (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Disaster strikes - fourth paragraph ✅ Kees08 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Manned development missions - all paragraphs ✅ Kees08 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Production lunar landings - second and third paragraphs
 * Mission cutbacks - first, second and third paragraphs
 * Extended missions - first, second, third paragraphs ✅ Kees08 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mission summary - page numbers. Also, sources for other than surface times and sample amounts
 * Samples returned - first, second, third paragraphs
 * Apollo Applications Program - first and second paragraphs
 * Science and engineering - first, second, fourth and fifth paragraphs

That should do it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bibliography
 * Burrows - location and publisher ✅ (publisher was there) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dawson & Bowles - location ✅ JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ertel & Newkirk - location ✅ Already there JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Where are we with this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other editors
JustinTime55, Hawkeye7, this review has been stalled for quite some time. Are further edits going to be made, or should the review be closed?

The requirement that the article meet the requirements of WP:LEAD has not been met in one important aspect: there's a limit of four paragraphs for any lead, and this one comes in at five sizable paragraphs. Please adjust the lead accordingly. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reduced the lead to four succinct paragraphs. I hadn't paid much attention to the review because I have been overseas at Wikimania in Esino Lario, and am still on my way home. I saw little need to fail the article so long as progress was being made towards fixing the problems identified in the review. I could pitch in and help, but not until I get back. I can fail it at any time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note that this is not an absolute requirement, and I won't fail a GA assessment over it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Citations have been really hard to find. I'll keep working. Kees08 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, there are seven more sections that need citations expanded. If we each do about two, we can finish this week! Let's get this thing pushed! I'll work on it later tonight. Kees08 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done everything down to the "Legacy" section. That's the only one that still needs to be done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Finished up everything past the legacy section. Could you do one final sweep of the article and make sure we addressed everything you wanted? Should be good at this point. Kees08 (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Passing article now. Although it has taken a long time, I have articles that have been in the GA queue longer. If you want to take the article to FAC, get back to me first before nominating; it still needs a lot of work to reach that level. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)