Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 5/archive1

Apollo 5

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... the first flight test of the lunar module. Today, it's somewhat sunk in obscurity but it was important and a big deal at the time. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Comment Support by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Sorry to say this, but I have to oppose the nomination. Many sections are very under-developed, and compare to Apollo 4, Apollo 5 is far, far from being a featured article. I respect a ton of your works at the article, but most people here would prefer to have a good article to review here. Although, I will review the article for good article status if you want to do that now :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more information on Apollo 4 than 5. If you can point to sources that I'm not using, or underusing, I'll be happy to incorporate them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, after hearing Hawkeye7 argument, I think I need to look at the article for a little bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

 * The insignia is in a pretty odd place
 * It's next to the text which discusses it. I'm open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In Apollo 4, there is a Aftermath, assessment and spacecraft location section. Why aren't there one in Apollo 5?
 * There is no surviving spacecraft. There were a large number of comments afterwards about Apollo 4 (big rocket!). There are many fewer about Apollo 4, so I folded that in, along with what came after (the next flight of the LM) into the flight section.


 * There is no alt text in the images (even in Apollo 4)
 * I've added it to Apollo 5. I will add it to Apollo 4 as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I almost forgot about this article! Previously, I have a hunch that there's something that isn't right, but after through inspection, the article is pretty spotless for me. I support this nomination. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7
I agree that there is more information on Apollo 4 than Apollo 5. Articles are as long or short as they need to be.

Lead

 * due to programming problems That's not really fair; suggest re-wording to match source 21
 * Link "Houston" in the lead.
 * Suggest linking Mission Control to Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center instead.

Background

 *  U.S. President John F. Kennedy challenged his nation suggest linking "challenged his nation" to We choose to go to the Moon
 * Define and link NASA
 * NASA invited 11 companies "eleven" per MOS:NUMBER
 * Link lunar orbit rendezvous; no need for quotes
 * Link major general (United States)
 * De-capitalise Lunar Excursion Module

Delays

 * Suggest moving the sentence starting with "To make way for SA-204" and the from the equipment section to up here, since this is needed for the reader to make sense of it, and it isn't really part of equipment
 * It begs the question though: why use SA-204 instead of SA-206?
 * "Just after New Year's 1968" New Year's Day?

Equipment

 * The first paragraph should be moved up into the Delays section, where it is already partially covered.
 * "metre" should be spelled "meter"; the US asserts ownership of the metric system (NASA and our MOS recommend the dd mm yyyy date format)
 * Re the date format, since all of the Apollo mission articles re using month day year, this one probably should too. It would be a lot of work to change them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It's no work at all - I can change them at the push of a button - but we should leave it as it is. (MOS:RETAIN) However, the article is one of those that makes the benefits of the US government format pretty obvious. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest incorporating the launch mass from the infobox.
 * I've added the whole stack's.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Flight

 * "UT" should be "UTC", with a link
 * Suggest splitting the first paragraph after fn 1
 * "Mission Control, under Kranz's command, quickly saw what had happened" Not really; it was not understood until much later. suggest removing the second clause
 * "The first crewed LM flight took place on Apollo 9" Suggest adding when this was.
 * Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding orbit inclination and period from the infobox. Footnotes can then be removed from the infobox, as it will all be in the article.
 * Except that the SATCAT number is not referenced

Source review by Guerillero

 * drewexmachina.com is personal blog. Why is it a high quality RS?
 * According to the author's resume, here, he is a "freelance writer specializing in astronomy, astrobiology and the history of spaceflight with over 500 contributions to books, websites and print magazines including Scientific American and Sky & Telescope Also maintains the Drew Ex Machina website which regularly posts articles on various space-related topics with over 130,000 unique visitors annually." I would tend to say that makes him per WP:BLOG a "well-known professional researcher writing within their field", especially in view of his scientific credentials.


 * Why is "Apollo/Skylab ASTP and Shuttle Orbiter Major End Items" a footnote and not in sources?
 * It is being used only to source the serial number of the SLA.


 * There are a number of things like this
 * It's often preferable to put non-book sources in the references, as more readily accessible to the reader, who can see the source right there and doesn't have to deal with some shorthand code for it that then links into the sources section.


 * http://www.genedorr.com/patches/Ground.html is a personal website. Why is it a high quality RS?
 * I've switched to a source published by Chris Spain, who is an expert in space memorabilia whose websites have been used and passed in previous Apollo FACs.


 * McDowell, Jonathan has an article
 * Done.

-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done or responded to the above. Thanks for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Pass -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 21:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead BG

 * The detail about the original S-IB being used for Skylab only appears in a note. It should be in the body of the article if it makes it into the lead section. My opinion is that it is too small of a detail to qualify for the lead.
 * "a contemplated second uncrewed mission to test the LM was dispensed with" I think your wording later in the article "a second uncrewed flight test using LM-2 was cancelled" is worded better than this sentence in the lead. I would change it to "The mission was successful enough that a a second uncrewed LM flight test was cancelled"
 * "with a safe return to Earth" I think this is assumed and doesn't need to be included in the lead.
 * All the above are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Background BG

 * I prefer the wording on the Apollo 4 page about Kennedy's speech
 * "by the third stage of the launch vehicle, that stage being known as the S-IVB" I think this could be shortened to "by the third stage of the launch vehicle, the S-IVB"
 * The above two done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The timing is a little confusing in this. Lunar orbit rendezvous was decided on in late 1962, but then NASA was inviting bids on the LM in 1962, which was decided on November 7? I'm guessing all of this did not happen in late 1962.
 * The contract was awarded on November 7. LOR approval process was much of 1962, but given that Webb had approved it in August, it was going to happen.


 * "Once in lunar orbit, the astronauts who would land would enter what was then known as the lunar excursion module, which would separate from the rest of the spacecraft, land, and after taking off again be discarded once the crew had transferred back." This is a long sentence, but also skips over some info for the flight (the CSM/LM docking and entering lunar orbit, docking again after the landing).. It also doesn't explain what parts of the Apollo spacecraft are involved, as there's no mention of the Apollo CSM. My take, "While in transit to the Moon, the Apollo command and service module would dock with the lunar module. Once the spacecraft entered lunar orbit, some of the astronauts would enter the lunar module, undock from the CSM, and land. The lunar module would then launch from the lunar service, dock with the CSM to allow the crew to transfer back, and was discarded."
 * I'm trying to explain it from the perspective of 1962. Some of those things had not yet been decided. I've worked on it some.


 * "The remainder of the spacecraft would then return to Earth." I would change this to "The CSM would then return to Earth." to make it clear what part of the spacecraft is still being flown.
 * I've merged that into the previous sentence to avoid two uses of CSM in close proximity.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Delays BG

 * "As with Apollo 4, this flight experienced long delays." I can't find a specific MOS for it, but I don't think Apollo 5's first mention in the body of the article should be "this flight".
 * Tweaked.
 * Why is "Apollo 4" in bold? I don't think that is the standard outside of the lead section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "The primary cause of this was the lunar module, which was well behind schedule" The subject of the previous sentence is the flight/Apollo 5, so this sentence should either be combined with the previous sentence, or it should explicitly refer to the delays.
 * Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The use of "long" and "well" don't quantify the length of the delays and how behind schedule the LM development was. Since the rest of the section goes into those specifics, it's sufficient just to note the delays without the extra words that add emphasis.
 * I think you have to say something to let the readers know the delays were significant. Just saying there were delays doesn't convey anything to the reader. Every project has delays.


 * "...had originally hoped that in April 1967, the first lunar module, LM-1, would be launched on an uncrewed test flight in space" This sentence should address the what before the when. Also, it seems redundant to mention that the LM would be launched and then tested in space. My take "...had originally hoped that an uncrewed test flight of LM-1, the first lunar module, would launch in April 1967"
 * Done with slight variation.


 * "NASA asked Grumman to have LM-1 delivered to Kennedy Space Center in Florida by September 1966, but due to the difficulties in manufacturing LM-1, delivery slipped later and later. " Was September 1966 the planned delivery date? This just says that NASA requested that date. I would also say "repeatedly delayed" rather than "slipped later and later".
 * That's what Debus asked Grumman for. The source isn't clear on how etched in stone this was. I've made that change.


 * "After the fire that month that took the lives of the Apollo 1 crew" This comes across as WP:POETIC; it should be "After the fire that killed the Apollo 1 crew"
 * Fine.


 * "to Launch Complex 37 and erected there in place of AS-206" I think it's clear from earlier in the paragraph that rockets are erected at the launch complex; it's sufficient to say "to Launch Complex 37 to replace AS-206"
 * OK with slight variation


 * There is inconsistent use of "LM" vs. "lunar module." It makes sense ins some instances, such as "first lunar module, LM-1" when it would be awkward to use LM twice in a row, but it should be otherwise consistent throughout the article.
 * OK


 * "then supervised Grumman as its technicians tested and modified the vehicle" This reads like he supervised the company as their technicians tested and modified, rather than supervising the techniciains. I would use "then supervised the Grumman technicians as they tested and modified the vehicle."
 * The problem with that is that it leaves an ambiguous they, as the reader might conclude that Williams was supervising his team while doing the testing etc.
 * I still think it reads weird, as it comes across like the team was supervising the Grumman corporation rather than the Grumman techs. Maybe "Grumman technicians that tested and modified the vehicle." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've played with it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "Due to leaks in the LM's ascent stage, the two stages were demated in August, and after these were fixed and the stages remated, another leak developed and the stages were demated again in September, with several pieces of equipment removed for repair by Grumman, after which the stages were remated again in October." This is a long sentence and should be broken up.
 * Done.

Objectives BG

 * "During the monitoring of LM systems by NASA engineers," I think it's clear that a test flight is for gathering flight data and it doesn't need to be said that engineers are monitoring it.
 * OK.


 * Combine the use cases for fire in the hole testing, and remove the info about its naming. My take is "During the flight, the ascent and descent engines would be fired. A "fire in the hole" test would be conducted to test if the ascent stage could still fire while attached to the descent stage, a procedure that would be used on the lunar surface and in the event of an aborted lunar landing. It involved shutting down the descent stage, switching control and power to the ascent stage, and starting the ascent engine while the two stages were still mated."
 * I've adopted your language but think the derivation of the "fire in the hole" worth including. We don't mention it in any of the other Apollo articles, but it's a "thing" mentioned in the sources.


 * That Gene Kranz was the flight director is not a mission objective; that fact should be moved to the flight section.
 * OK.

Equipment BG

 * There is a lot of repeated information about the use of SA-204 from Apollo 1 on Apollo 5; it should be either in the delays section or equipment section, but not both.
 * I think there needs to be mentioned in both, as it is part of the chronology, but something needs to be said in the Equipment section as well. I've rewritten it, see what you think.
 * I think it works better this way. The sentence had 3 uses of "designated" or "designation". I removed the old number, SA-204, and changed one "designated" to "assigned". The old designation is in the delays section, and I think the new designation is sufficient in the Equipment section.


 * The chronology is off when describing SA-204. The sentence says that it survived the fire, was inspected, and then jumps back in time to when it was delivered 4 months prior to the Apollo 1 fire.
 * Re-ordered.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Rather than saying the Apollo 5 vehicle had a stubby appearance, it should be quantified how much shorter it was than a different Saturn 1B launch.
 * I think the descriptor, which is in the source, conveys more to the reader than any figures would.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Using "both" when describing the reasons that legs weren't on LM-1 makes it sound like those reasons are separate, when they are linked. No landing legs will always be a weight-saving measure, but ill advised when attempting a landing. I would just change it to "As they would not be needed during the test mission, LM-1 did not have landing legs"
 * OK.


 * It's not clear why the windows were replaced on LM-1 when a window broke on LM-5. I'm assuming it was because the engineers didn't trust the windows on LM-1, but that's not clear from the current sentence.
 * I've added what the source said, that the officials (Low and Phillips) were concerned about a failure in flight. What the consequences of this would be is not made clear.


 * Is "mission programmer" the technical term? It seems like "remote controller" would explain what that hardware does without further explanation required.
 * That is the term the source used, and given it is the press kit, it is presumably reliable.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Flight BG

 * The von Braun photo can be prevented to fix MOS:SANDWICH. The caption is the only mention of von Braun in the article, and there's a better picture of the vehicle on the launch platform in the equipment section.
 * Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I would consider replacing the mission control photo with a launch photo (like |this one).
 * I just feel the real action was taking place in Mission Control here and we're better off with an image of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The use of "some accounts" and flowing right into Don Eyre's theory makes it sound like they are the same, when the source makes it clear that his opinion is that it wasn't the partial pressurization that caused the issue. Additionally, I think this places undue weight on Eyre's theory. I would try to make this more balanced; Eyre's cited "Chariots for Apollo" for the partial pressurization accounts.
 * If there is debate on the actual cause of the problem, it seems like conjecture to say that programmers would be able to fix it. That seems like it's the opinion of Eyre, but comes across like it is a certainty.
 * (both of the above) I've added something from Brooks. I don't think there's debate, really, just unclearness. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Why would astronauts on a crewed mission be able to evaluate restarting the engine but Mission Control couldn't do that? It's not clear from this paragraph, and both groups would presumably have access to the same information.
 * The source isn't clear. I would speculate that it would be easier to restart the engine using the controls in the spacecraft than through remote programming.


 * "and failure to conduct these tests would have meant the mission was a failure" I would reword this to avoid the double use of "failure"
 * OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "Kranz's team accomplished every burn, though due to a problem with the guidance system, after the burns, the ascent stage spun out of control. This occurred just under eight hours into the mission." I would reorganize this. The first sentence covers a lot of material, and also has a confusing flow when describing the spacecraft going out of control. I would replace the "every burn" with "all of the tests" to show that all objectives were met, and avoid the overuse of "burn". I would have a separate sentence describing the out of control spacecraft, and start off with saying what happened before addressing the when and the why. My take is: "The ascent stage spun out of control eight hours into the mission, after all of the engine burns, due to a problem with the guidance system."
 * Done with slight variations.


 * Remove the COSPAR IDs from the paragraph about reentry
 * Remove the date for the S-IVB reentering; it's sufficient to say 15.5 hours into flight
 * The above two done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Insignia BG

 * This section only has two sentences, and much of the information in the first sentence is duplicated in the mission patch caption. Additionally, the short paragraph coupled with the image results in a lot of whitespace. I would move the mission logo up to the insignia parameter for the infobox, and then add patch details as a note in the notes section.
 * It's not the mission insignia per se so I'm a bit reluctant to put it there. I think it needs to be in the article since it is associated with Apollo 5.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While I don't think it's appropriate to have a section titled "Unofficial insignia", I think it comes across as much, if not more, as the official patch in its own section titled "Insignia" rather than the insignia parameter for the infobox. It seems like there wasn't an official mission patch for Apollo 5 (that's a shame), but I don't think an internal Grumman patch deserves its own section. My vote is to remove it entirely. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The mission patch photo looks like it is missing the appropriate permissions on Commons. There's a banner from the OTRS team about it, but another banner saying the permission details have been e-mailed to the Volunteer Response Team. Looking through the file history doesn't say what orders those banners were added, so I'm not sure which is the correct one.
 * I've just cut the whole thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

General comments BG
I'll be back later for the rest of the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that's all I have! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've gotten or responded too everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice work. I support this nomination! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
Support. A couple of minor issues below, which don't affect my support. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You refer to both the Saturn IB and the S-IB as "rocket"s in the lead; I assumed that "S-IB" was an abbreviation for the Saturn IB, and only realized my mistake when I checked to see what it was linking to. The S-IB article calls it a stage, not a rocket; I think it would make things cleare to use the same term here in the lead.
 * "a 163-by-222-kilometer (88 by 120 nmi) orbit" -- do the numbers refer to perigee and apogee? Perhaps an explanatory footnote could be added?
 * Those things are fixed. Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The note should probably on the first instance. And I just noticed that one orbit is given in kilometres, with a parenthetical conversion to nautical miles, and the other orbit is given in nautical miles with a conversion to kilometres; they should probably both be the same way round. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Got those, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review
Licensing looks fine. The white balance of the third image looks off (the sky should be blue, not purple) but that's not a reason to oppose. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)