Talk:Neil Armstrong/GA2

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

Reviewer: Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys - as this is a long article, I will be calling in help from various people with it (it's only my 2nd GA review). Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 08:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Checking off against the GA 'quick fail' criteria;
 * The article completely lacks reliable sources – ❌
 * The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – ❌
 * There are cleanup banners - ❌
 * The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars - ❌
 * The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint - ❌

No problems there. So...let's get on with the review proper.  Chzz  ► 11:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No disambiguaton links (other than the hatnote)


 * One external link does not work: http://www.spaceflighthistory.com/apolloprogram.htm#armstrong  - please replace (fix) or remove it.
 * Armstrong has said that he personally did not think that any flag should have been left, but decided it wasn't worth making a big deal about. - if this is a direct quotation (as suggested by the use of "wasn't", and the tone) then it needs to be in quotation marks. If it is not a direct quote, then the use of the abbreviated "wasn't" needs changing to "was not", and probably consider rephrasing the colloquial "big deal" too.
 * There are too many media files (images, videos, audio) which is causing bunching problems. I think that File:Apollo 11 first step.jpg, File:A11v 1092338.ogg and File:Frase de Neil Armstrong.ogg are unnecessarily repetitious. I can understand the temptation, given this key moment in history - but think we should pick just one of those 3. The video seems best, and includes the "one small step..." quote anyway.  Chzz  ► 11:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble
 * All 3 'images' are still on the page?  Chzz  ► 15:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Input?
I've fixed many of the other things which needed to be done, but it's really up to you to sort out these other required references! Quite a few 'dangling statements' at the close of paragraphs, which don't have references at all, and need them. Just run through the article yourself, and make a list of all places with 'dangling claims' like this - you can probably see them as easily as I can. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting Stuff
I will be going through and doing any minor and obvious things (such as removing totally unnecessary wikilinks - e.g. wikilinking "moon" is not necessary! Do feel free to join in with checking for non-breaking spaces inserted where appropriate, and so forth :o)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm noticing rather a lot of short, choppy sentences; I've tweaked several by concatenation, but again this is something that you could be doing to good effect. Why not start at the bottom, and we may meet in the middle? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 13:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Images
The pictures are a bit 'messy' to the eye; could we have them all aligned-right, and ideally space them out a little more evenly on the page (if possible without having them too far away from their textual context). Not a 'requirement', but it would make the whole article less hiccuppy to look at. A nice spacing would be approximately one pic for each screenful of text :o)  There may (possibly) be a couple too many pictures there as well.  Perhaps check which are the best, and maybe ditch something?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A fair bit of tweaking - looks better now :o) However, the "Life After Apollo" section is image-heavy; I suggest removing the Kennedy Space Center one, as there's no reference to this visit in the text, and images just for the sake of them are a bit unencyclopaedic.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Some random notes from Chzz

 * the number four engine stopped and the propeller began windmilling in the airstream. - "windmilling" seems like a jargon term; at least, I don't quite know it - thus it either should wikilink to an explanation, or be written using normal language. I'd guess it kinda means that, despite no engine, it just kept rotating?
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * if it spun too fast, it would fly apart - use of the word "fly" here is inadvisible, due to the context of 'flight' - can we say it would break apart or something, instead?
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 140,000 ft (43 km). At that altitude, the atmosphere is so thin that aerodynamic surfaces have no effect - surely they cannot have no effect - should this say "very little effect", or something?
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (legend has that he flew as far as the Rose Bowl) - that needs rephrasing; it doesn't make sense. Poss "legend has it that he..."
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * barely managed to land without striking Joshua trees at the south end. - I think that needs an article, ie  "...striking the Joshua trees" or "striking some Joshua trees"
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A second incident happened when Armstrong flew for the only time with Chuck Yeager, four days after his X-15 adventure. - whilst I understand the meaning, that sentence is clumsy - probably trying to fit too many facts into one sentence. It could be phrased better; e.g. starting "Four days later, " (if it clearly runs on from the last)
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As they made a touch-and-go, the wheels became stuck and they had to wait - that can't have been a touch-and-go, if they didn't go. So maybe "As they attempted a touch-and-go manoeuvre..."
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * the ventral fin and landing gear door struck - that wikilink does not make sense in context, because it links to an anatomical article
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * the Russians launched Valentina Tereshkova - no, they didn't; you don't launch people.
 * Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

--- (Purdue University announced in October 2004 that their new engineering building would be named Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering in his honor.[105] The building cost $53.2 million and was dedicated on October 27, 2007. - needs a reference for that 2nd part.  Chzz  ► 22:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your reviews aren't "randoms" . Thanks to Pesky for the fixes while I'm busy with other commitments.  Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble
 * It was 'random' because I just dived into a couple of sections to check over, so the comments referred to bits and pieces throughout. Thanks for all the work fixing them. I'll try to add more comments ASAP.  Chzz  ► 15:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

my thoughts too
Early life?
 * His honorary degrees are unreferenced and at present are in the Early life section. Perhaps they should be somewhat referenced (& placed closer to where they occurred within the timeline of Armstrong's life, maybe in the Life after Apollo section or the Legacy section.) Shearonink (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Added reference. This info relates to his education at college – he was awarded the degrees because of his studies. Moving it elsewhere wouldn't make sense, since the other paragraphs talk about his space achievements and later accomplishments in life.  Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble 07:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of text
I've removed a large chunk of (unsourced) text about Buzz Aldrin, which does not hold a lot of significance, although it's still about Apollo 11. Any comments?

Fair enough - if you can't find the references, it has to go! (And remember to sign your posts!) Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Still needing refs :o)
Check out all paragraphs, please, for final statements without references! If we have a source - let's have it! If not, let's lose those unreferenced closing statements at the ends of paragraphs :o) Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've put citation needed flags where I'd like citations to be found for, to make them easier to spot on the page. :o) Can you go through them and find sources?  If the source is the same as the one most recently cited, you could just move the ref to the required place, which would be fine.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather bigger challenge here
…. we have a challenge …

I'm concerned about too-close paraphrasing in various places - but I'm sure you'll be able to go through and re-write as necessary to get over the problem.

Examples:

Article has "On September 3, 1951, Armstrong flew armed reconnaissance over the principal targets of freight yards and a bridge " (added see WikiBlame, added 2011; this is rather too close to the original First man: the life of Neil A. Armstrong (Hansen) book published in 2005. (Snippet view, Google books, shows Armstrong's mission was to fly an armed reconnaissance mission into a hot zone that US naval intelligence called "Green Six. ... The principal targets for September 3, 1951, were freight yards and a bridge )
 *  Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble 06:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Article has: "piloting chase planes on drops of experimental aircraft from converted bombers [etc.]" ; this appears verbatim in Calendar of Historical Events, Births, Holidays and Observances, 2007. (And I suspect that the 2007 Calendar may have lifted it verbatim from the 2005 Hansen book).
 *  Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble 06:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As both of these examples relate to the Hansen book, and that particular book is used so much as a reference, I have concerns that other similar examples may well come to light if searched for, specifically.

So - could you please go right through everything which uses the Hansen book as a source, and re-write as necessary for 'acceptability' in line with WP policy? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(Much (if not all) of the problem seems to stem from here with the insertion of a huge amount of material by EvilMonkey on 01:57, 26 January 2006 . Took me a while going through the old diffs to track this down.)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

... and, looking at just how much was entered at that time, and all by the same hand, do you actually think you can go through and re-write that amount? Let me know if this is too big a task. I've put the review on hold for the time being, until (unless?) we can get this one sorted out. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 17:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The challenge is indeed big, but work is winding down now. Pesky, how about delivering an ultimatum?  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 09:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty happy now that the possibly copyvio's have been correctly addressed and dealt wtih. Great work, all those who helped out with this - and particularly congrats to Speedy for puttin in the effort of getting the book and checking everything out.  I'm requesting a couple more pairs of eyes on this before I pass it, but at the moment it's looking promising :o)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts
Article is an excellent read. From my lay perspetive is seems well sourced and free from hagiography.

What is an "RCS ring"? Is there any danger of reader confusion because RCS also stands for Reaction Control System for which there is an article?

Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm, so, para above the one saying "RCS" says; Armstrong decided the only course of action was to engage the Reentry Control System (RCS)
 * Then the following paragraph uses the abbreviation twice, Armstrong could have salvaged the mission if he had turned on only one of the two RCS rings and saved the other for mission objectives. These criticisms were unfounded – no malfunction procedures were written and it was only possible to turn on both RCS rings
 * Unfortunately we don't currently have an article about RCS.
 * I read up on this, in the Gemini manual, and elsewhere.
 * Apparently the Gemini had two identical "RCS rings" - each one, a small collection of thrusters, for use during re-entry. Only one was needed; the other was a backup. Each "ring" was a set of small thrusters surrounding the nose cone. Note, it was only supposed to be used for re-entry.
 * When Gemini VIII docked with RM-81 Agena (another rocket), they used the 8 thrusters of the Orbit attitude and maneuvering system. They got into an out-of-control roll, because thruster #8 was firing continuously (they didn't know that at the time; it was discovered later on).
 * They detached from Agenda, but the roll got worse. They decided to improvise and use the RCS system...
 * They turned on both RCS rings, checked RCS was working, then turned off ring 'B'.
 * They successfully used the RCS to stabilize the roll.
 * However, because they'd used the RCS, they had to end the mission early - that was a pre-agreed 'mission rule'.
 * The thrusters can be seen quite clearly in this photo of Gemini 8, which is in the Neil Armstrong Air and Space Museum. The dark, elliptical thingies, top-left-ish.
 * I worked this out by researching it on the web. You can read most of it on pp. 253-254 of "Gemini: steps to the moon" by David Shayler; I also looked in the project Gemini manual, and some other books and stuff.


 * With regards to this part;

Throughout the astronaut office there were a few people, most notably Walter Cunningham, who publicly stated that Armstrong and Scott had ignored the malfunction procedures for such an incident, and that Armstrong could have salvaged the mission if he had turned on only one of the two RCS rings and saved the other for mission objectives. These criticisms were unfounded – no malfunction procedures were written and it was only possible to turn on both RCS rings, not one or the other.
 * -I was unable to check that online; I didn't find information about the criticism, or whether or not it was possible, or procedure, that they turned on both rings.


 * I think that section could be clarified somewhat, with a little bit of research.  Chzz  ► 16:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note -- please allow a few more days for me build up momentum. I feel quite down at the moment. I'll get it done eventually.  Sp33dyphil  Ad astra 06:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You and me both! I was attacked by an Evil Virus, and have been bed-rid for over a week (getting better now, though).  No worries, no hurry. :o)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Test pilot section
The first paragraph's last sentence says "He applied at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics High-Speed Flight Station at Edwards Air Force Base; although they had no open positions they did forward his application to the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio, where Armstrong began working at Lewis Field in March 1955.[24]". But then, the second paragraph begins with "On his first day at Edwards...". How did he get at Edwards? Did he do anything noteworthy at Lewis? --KFP (contact | edits) 11:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed :o) Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Checklist
We are there - this one is ready to fly :o)


 * 1) Well written : yes, the article is clear, easy to understand, complies with the MOS; spelling and grammar are OK.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: it is well-referenced, with inline citations and clear bibliography; supporting notes are also clear and concise.
 * 3) Broad in its coverage: yes, a good overview of Armstrong's history, background, and pre- and post- moonwalk activities, without going into clearly superfluous detail
 * 4) Neutral: yes, no problems here
 * 5) Stable: Yes, non-problematic in this respect; recent work has all been in line with review requirements.
 * 6) Illustrated: Images are relevant, suitably captioned, and copyright status is clear and OK.

This article encountered some unexpected glitches during this process; hats off to Sp33dyphil for "Valour in the face of adversity", in his determination to see it through, and for "Commitment above and beyond the call of duty" for his willingness to go back to original sources, in-depth and at length, at a time when this cannot have been easy or convenient to do so. Many thanks to everyone who assisted with this.

. This article has passed the GA review process, and I will gladly promote it to GA status.