Talk:Saturn V dynamic test vehicle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ankit Maity 10:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi ke4roh,

Thanks for your nomination. I have selected it as a good article because it had enough info and everything was well balanced. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 10:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy / completeness concern
Forgive me if this is in the wrong place; I don't fully understand the GA nomination process. Copying comments I entered in the reasessment, which I still understand to be pending:

I agree these assessments are sometimes given too casually, and I have a couple of accuracy/completeness concerns:


 * The term "Apollo module" was used inappropriately; such a term was never used in this sense by NASA engineering and seems to reflect a lack of knowledge about the Apollo spacecraft, which consisted of two separate vehicles: the Command/Service Module, and the Lunar Module. I've fixed the references by changing "Apollo module" to "Apollo spacecraft".
 * Corrective action: It isn't clear from the information given in this article (or the sources cited), whether or not the BP-27 accounted for the Lunar Module mass (which would have been necessary for an accurate dynamic test of the complete vehicle.) Unfortunately there don't seem to be any pictures available of exactly what BP-27 looked like. The LM was usually simulated by a LM Test Article (LTA) (such as that carried on the Apollo 6 and Apollo 8 flights), which would have been a separate piece of hardware carried inside the SLA. We should find out whether or not the LM was accounted for, and state it in the article one way or another.

Other than this, it qualifies as at least B class. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Follow-up at Good_article_reassessment/SA-500D/1. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)