Talk:Manned Orbiting Laboratory/GA1

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

Reviewer: Scope creep (talk · contribs) 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Review

 * 1) Copyvio check. That's fine. Its a 21% but it is common terms, e.g. names of things. Fine. ✅

Prose
I have read the article 8 times now, the spelling is good, layout is good and coverage of content, having read up on it, seems fairly comprehensive at the moment.  scope_creep Talk  20:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead

 * never-flown part. Can that re-clarified with a better description, as you have launched on 3 November 1966 at the bottom. Apart from that, it is really decent. Possibly re-craft it. It could best it is at the moment. I don't know. It sound a wee bit odd, but it might be me. "It was a never flown part"??
 * Tweaked the wording to indicate that the OPS 0855 was an uncrewed test flight of Gemini B, and that it was the Titan IIIM rocket that never flew.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still not right. It doesn't read correctly as your saying something in the first para, and then saying the reverse in the third para. You will need to clarify it by rewording it slightly.
 * Removed text to avoid giving this impression.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That reads much better and flows better along with new layout. I mean it was pretty decent at the beginning, but it is better now. ✅

Background

 * The launch of Sputnik 1, the first satellite, by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957, came as a profound shock to the American public, which had complacently assumed American technical superiority, and sparked a search for initiatives to counter its psychological impact Its a long sentence. Is it possible to take out one American and reorder. Give an ownership, e.g in their technical superiority, and sparked a...
 * ✅ Reduced the sentence size by removing the second clause, which lost its relevance.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * most forms of human space flight I'm left wondering what was left out?
 * Dyna-Soar is mentioned later in the paragraph. There was a lot of negotiation about what was meant, as it involved transferring funds to NASA, the demarcation between civil and military uses of space was unclear, and just what NASA wanted to do was undefined. In the end, major transfers included MISS, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, but this took place over a period of several years.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * transferred $53.8 million (equivalent to $367 million in 2018) Somebody mentioned inflation template, might be worth using. I don't know what nick its in. Surprising to say the least.
 * You're looking at it. This text is generated by the inflation template. Note that for defence and R&D projected, we use the GDP rather than CPI as deflator. The year will automatically go up from 2018 when someone gets around to uploading more data.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * including Man in Space Soonest to NASA Is there a link or a clarification?
 * ✅ Man in Space Soonest? Of course, but since it is no longer mentioned earlier, I have deleted it from here.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The same 22 February memorandum tacit approval for the development of a space station gave tacit approval
 * ✅ Added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Program 287 As its a name
 * Not sure what you want here.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Surround with "Program 287" unless it is a number scheme of some kind. Which probably what it is?
 * Yes. For funding tracking purposes, each program was allocated a number. For example, we have articles on Program 35, Program 279 and Program 437. Added words to this effect as a short explanation.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * McNamara Doesn't seem to be linked.
 * ✅ Added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Everybody knows who he is, I suppose. ✅

Planning

 * "white" experiments What are these? Can it be linked somehow, or clarified?
 * ✅ Added "i.e. unclassified and publicly acknowledged, as opposed to "black" secret and unacknowledged". As there were 59 of them, I decided not to list.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a know thing with military. It is black money, black funds, black projects and on and on. ✅


 * I was a little surprised that it was officially called that.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

✅
 * Brigadier General Russell A. Berg Link this.
 * ✅ Linked. (Looks like I cleaned it up.)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Black Financial Procedures Can you clarify this.
 * The paragraph goes on to say what the procedure was.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine. ✅


 * White Financial Procedures Agreement What exactly are these? Some clarification is needed.
 * The same, but for the white budget.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ As long as the reader understands what it is.


 * black funds Link this.
 * ✅ Linked to Black budget. The article gives a short exp0lanation as well.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's cool. Seems to be two article with slightly different domain, but almost identical. ✅


 * (GSE/TD) Get rid. Not used.
 * ✅ Removed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Douglas selected four major subcontractors Seems to six??
 * ✅ Five. Corrected.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Aerospace and the MOL. sitting alone, all lonely.
 * ✅ Deleted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been linked to another sentence. Coolio. ✅


 * Aerospace and the MOL. Aerospace concurred with all but the last, noting.. Got that, took 30 seconds. Can you rewrite it.
 * ✅ Deleted the stray text.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the one has been linked. Forget that. ✅

Spacecraft

 * thrusters Is it worth linking thrusters. There is an article of sorts, Thrusters (spacecraft).
 * ✅ Linked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Spacesuits

 * Hamilton Standard Is that the right company? According to the article it a manufacturer of propellers. Parts supplier. Unlike the other three, there is no mention of material design, or suit design.
 * Seems to be, but terrible article. No mention of suit design, spacecraft design going on for decades.
 * Yes, it is.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ":Thats ok. More a comment. ✅

Launch complex

 * mobile services Tower Uppercase Tower?
 * ✅ De-capped.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * segment receipt inspection building and ready building What are these? Kind of make sense, but odd sounding?
 * The different components of the spacecraft (segments) arrived from different manufacturers and had to be assembled.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the second time. ✅

Easter Island
✅

Rochester
✅

Test flight
✅

Soviet responses
✅

Delays and cost increases
✅

Cancellation

 * He directed Director the?
 * ✅ Added "the".  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Better reading. ✅


 * Secretary of the Air Force can this be linked, if not already liked.
 * Already linked above.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats ok. Close. ✅

Legacy
✅

Mos
I've had a good look through this. I can't see anything that immediately stands out. I spent some time over the weekend comparing the article to the WP:MOS, on line by line basis and think it is OK. There is nothing glaring. I think is done. ✅

Ref layout
This is fine. ✅

RS Refs
Hi This seems to be bloggish, work of one person? The military documents, memo's and so on are fine.


 * It's the online Encyclopedia Astronautica. The site has won multiple awards, and Mark Wade is generally considered an expert. He has published articles on space exploration.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Coolio. ✅

OR
Not a chance. ✅

Pics

 * The vertical MOL diagram for the configuration image. The colouring, design, resolution and size are pretty poor. The has a breakdown. Would it be worth creating a new image?


 * Yes, but we cannot use that one, which is copyrighted. It could be omitted from the infobox entirely.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder if that is for the best. You already have the Integral launch dual compartment laboratory image, which clearly shows the compartmental breakdown and in much better detail, to be honest. You know, combined with that second image, it might not be too bad. The second image more than enough info. Yip, keep it. It is in-focus. ✅


 * The image of General Bernard Adolph Schriever. It quite small image and when it opened its quite blurry. It seems there is three public domain images available. There is one on the main article, at 257k, which is in perfect focus. What is your thoughts?


 * Switched pix.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I can see him. ✅

Broadness
I found a couple of extra papers. One paper interesting, Manned Orbiting Laboratory-for War or Peace? at. Another at Both of seem to be outside the archive.

It is comprehensive and heavily sourced. ✅

Focus
I have read six MOL type articles and they are all identical. ✅