Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 6/archive1

Apollo 6

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... the final uncrewed Apollo mission. It didn't go quite as planned, but it went well enough. Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Image review—pass (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Support by Constantine
I had a couple of read-throughs, and honestly couldn't find much to fault apart from a few nitpicks. Nice, comprehensive, and well-written article. Constantine  ✍  14:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The CM used was CM-020 to 'The command module used was CM-020'
 * Introduce George Mueller's role
 * I am not sure how many readers will identify what unit g stands for. Link it?
 * the planned 11,989-nautical-mile (22,204 km) apogee everywhere else in the text, the SI units come first
 * Thanks for the review. I've adopted your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7
Only have nitpick too.
 * "metres" should be "meters" in American English? (Yeah, I know, an oxymoron if ever was one)
 * Fixed (the usages, not the language).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Link trans-lunar injection, translunar trajectory, glycol, freon, crawler-transporter, Mobile Service Structure, Launch Complex 39A, Mission control center, Flight controller
 * Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "Apollo 6, the second test flight of the Saturn V rocket" Suggest "launch vehicle" instead of rocket to match the lead
 * Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Should " Lunar Module Test Article" be capitalised?
 * I suppose it should be Lunar Test Article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "a velocity of 36,500 feet per second (11,100 m/s)" For consistency, put the metric first for consistency
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * " with the S-IVB third stage and Instrument Unit computer also arriving on March 17." Recommend dropping "also" to avoid confusion
 * Changed "also" to "both".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You use the abbreviation KSC without defining it
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "from North American Rockwell" North American Aviation did not ,merge with Rockwell until September 1967
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * " The thrust variations caused the Saturn V to experience ±0.6 g, though it had only been designed for a maximum of ±0.25 g" Use the convert template to convert to m/s2.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "Gen. Samuel C. Phillips" -> "Major General Samuel C. Phillips" GEN is the abbreviation for "General" and he wasn't promoted to that rank until 1973. (Major General is abbreviated as MG in the USAF. But don't.)
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the article may be a bit too upbeat on the pogo problem being solved. It did occur on subsequent missions, although it was notr as serious. See  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've clarified to make it clearer that NASA felt it could be dealt with.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All sources are high quality.
 * I have removed a series of CS1 warnings generated by url-status cards without archive-url cards
 * And the format cards, as this leads to inconsistent capitalisation of "PDF"
 * Would prefer page numbers for sources 11, 13, 16, 18 and 25
 * I did it for Brooks. I seem to remember you have an online source of page images for Moonport?
 * You can download it from archive.org  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * fn 31 is only one page; use p. instead of pp.
 * Spot checks:
 * Confused by fn 30; think it should be the same page as fn 31
 * fn 18: the URL points to the wrong chapter, 20-4 instead of 20-3.
 * fn 9: Does not have the CM number; Suggest using fn 10 for the first sentence instead
 * fn 10, 11, 28, 31 okay
 * With the exception of the note above, I've done as you suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
Only one minor drafting point, and I know not what you can do about it: there remains a stray European "metres" in the Objectives section because, it seems, of the use of a template.

This article is an excellent addition to the continuing series about NASA flights. It is a splendid read (the necessary technical details are clearly expounded and not overdone), has every appearance of being comprehensive, appears to be authoritatively sourced, and is surprisingly well illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. –  Tim riley  talk   20:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support. I've taken care of that spelling.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Support from Ovinus
Article looking great, so I'll probably only have a few comments. More to follow. Ovinus (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Consistent hyphenation of trans-lunar/translunar would be nice
 * "would not encounter that body" To be clear, you mean the Moon, right? I'd just say "the Moon" instead of "that body" per WP:ELEVAR
 * Done so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "CSM-020 had only 23" Who enumerated these problems? Kleinknecht and his team?
 * Probably North American, the main contractor for the CSM, or the NASA inspectors at their plant in California.


 * "It consisted of a flight-type descent stage" It consisted of, or it was?
 * "included"


 * "contained no flight systems, but was made of ballasted aluminum" What is the relationship between these two ideas? I'd put "ballasted aluminum" earlier in this paragraph
 * I moved it further up in rewriting that sentence, but as it only refers to the ascent stage, I can't move it by much.


 * "dumbbell-shaped spacer" what is a spacer
 * "This had the same height" What is "this" referring to
 * Above two clarified. I think I've made it clear that as the S-II was not ready, NASA used the mock S-II previously used during Apollo 4 testing and which is discussed in that article, to allow testing of the Apollo 6 Saturn V to begin.


 * "many occasioned by work on Apollo 4" Is this clarification important? The previous sentence contained nearly the same info
 * I think it's useful to stress that the work on Apollo 6 continued to suffer delays because of Apollo 4 until Apollo 4 was launched in November 1967.


 * "the launch had to be slipped one more time" What does "slip" mean (never heard it in this context)
 * It is the proper term for a launch postponement. But it may be two jargonny. Changed to "postponed".


 * "The S-IVB also experienced a slight performance loss" Performance... in what specific sense? Efficiency?
 * Yes, not as much thrust as expected.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Malformed link in Orbit
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "However, NASA thought that the Saturn V had been "detuned" " To be clear, NASA had tried to combat the pogo problem, but it hadn't worked?
 * Yes, there were repeated pogo problems in tests of the Gemini launch vehicle, in 1963, and to a slight degree on Apollo 4. This was something that was an ongoing thing, occurring as late as Apollo 13. Apollo 6 was really the only one where it caused problems with the mission.


 * "Soon after the Apollo 6 flight, NASA and its contractors sought to eliminate the problems for future flights, and about 1,000 government and industry engineers were employed." Unless these 1,000 individuals worked solely on the pogo problem, this sentence belongs in the previous paragraph
 * They were employed on pogo. The quote is "At one time during the pogo studies, Lee B. James (who had replaced Rudolph as the Huntsville Saturn V manager) said, 1,000 engineers from government and industry were working on the problem." I've tweaked the woding in the article.


 * "and during such testing, liquid air was sprayed over the exteriors of the engines, damping out any vibrations" What do the vibrations have to do with the frost mentioned earlier in the sentence?
 * The engines would vibrate in vacuum, but would not with liquid air flowing on them, or any vibration would be lost amid the turbulence the flow of liquid air would cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "satisfy the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences" Satisfied them... to continue with the crewed missions? If so, state that explicitly
 * The source says "NASA's efforts to resolve the Apollo 6 problems satisfied the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, which in late April reported that NASA had analyzed the abnormalities of the flight, identified them with dispatch, and undertaken corrective action." I don't think the committee's approval was required to proceed with a crewed flight. This committee and its House analogue did conduct oversight of Apollo, and the money came through them. But there's not the explicit connection you mention.


 * Some of the material in Cameras is taken verbatim from (and probably some publication yet where that one's copied from), which is PD, but should it be attributed with the "this article incorporated public domain material from ..." ? I'm not familiar with the relevant guidelines there
 * Basically, what's going on there is that I did not feel comfortable paraphrasing those phrases, some of which are technical in the area of 1960s photography and I was afraid of losing nuance. For the information of the coordinator, the text in question is " Coverage included parts of the United States, the Atlantic Ocean, Africa, and the western Pacific Ocean. The camera had haze-penetrating film and filter combination, with better color balance and higher resolution than photographs taken on previous American crewed missions.[3] These proved excellent for cartographic, topographic, and geographic studies.[25] Source #3 says " These were later found to be excellent for cartographic, topographic, and geographic studies of continental areas, coastal regions, and shallow waters. The camera photographed sections of the United States, the Atlantic Ocean, Africa, and the western Pacific Ocean, and had a haze-penetrating film and filter combination that provided better color balance and higher resolution than any photographs obtained during the Mercury and Gemini flights."

Really nice work! I'll probably go through the article once more after your replies. Ovinus (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Some more comments/questions after a reread:
 * Maybe put a Mach number on the reentry velocities?
 * Mach is defined in terms of the local speed of sound, which would vary (and might not exist in sufficiently thin atmosphere).
 * Ah, good point, thanks


 * To be clear, the dimensions of the parking orbit are given as distance from the ground? Given the Earth's oblateness how is that even defined?
 * Apparently from mean sea level. There'd also be an issue with local topology (going, say, over the Himalayas) if they went with altitude above ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'm quite happy with the article. Ovinus (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)