Wikipedia:Peer review/Apollo 9/archive1

Apollo 9
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I have read the story of Apollo 9, and would like to see this important step in America's space program worked up to feature status. What improvements need to be made to promote this article up from B class to higher.

Thanks, Bender razz (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the opening paragraphs. Let me know what you think of them. Bender razz (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Good start, which needs a lot of work to get to featured status. Here are some suggestions to help along the way: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is always useful to have a model article to work from and Apollo 8 is already a WP:FA. I would look at that article very carefully and model as much of this one on it as possible.
 * Lead should be expanded to summarize the whole article - see WP:LEAD
 * "See also" goes at the end of the whole article, not at the end of a section. If there are relavant articles in a section you can use "hat notes" like see and main at the start of the section. See also WP:Summary style
 * Put photos throughout the article, not just in a gallery at the end
 * This article is currently very list-y and needs to be largely rewritten as text. Some of the lists could be broken out as their own sub-articles (List of Apollo 9 Maneuvers) instead of the whole Summary of Maneuvers section in there now. Look at how Apollo 8 handles the crew, for example. It lists them and then gives a few sentences on how they were chosen. You have one sentence As with Apollo 8 Before it, The crew of Apollo 9 consisted of two Gemini veterans and one rookie. but do not explain who was the rookie (I know, can figure that out from the number after the name) or which missions the others flew on.
 * Provide context for the reader - why did the crew sing Happy Birthday, for example? See WP:PCR
 * The biggest hurdle right now is a total lack of inline references and citations in all of the article. This would not make GA, let alone FA as is. See WP:CITE and WP:V and WP:RS