Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 4/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2021 [1].

Apollo 4[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an uncrewed spaceflight, long almost forgotten, but it was a very big deal at the time, attracting VIPs by the score to Kennedy Space Center, including Walter Cronkite, who got a bit more than he expected. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Looks good. Some minor stuff:

  • "Lasting almost nine hours, the mission splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, achieving all mission goals." Wording slightly awkward. Achieving all its missions goals? All the goals of the mission?
Rephrased.
  • "the main objective; landing astronauts on the Moon" replace semicolon with colon.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kennedy's death by assassination" Suggest just "Kennedy's assassination"
OK.
  • "at this time it had not even been decided what sort of spacecraft would be used" Actually, the Apollo CSM was already being designed.
Changed "decided" to "finalized".
  • "return in full to Earth" Suggest deleting "in full", as this already appears earlier in the sentence
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apollo 4 was the first flight from KSC, and the first using Launch Complex 39 there, built to accommodate the Saturn V." I think this should be in the lead as well.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest introducing the abbreviation "LC-39" here
Fine.
  • "Three Saturn IB launches took place in 1966" You could say that these were AS-201, AS-202 and AS-203, as AS-201 and AS-203 are mentioned below.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1965, General Samuel C. Phillips, director of the Apollo Program," Suggest "Major General Samuel C. Phillips, the director of the Apollo Program"
Rank clarified, but I've gone with "Apollo Program Director"--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beginning with the S-IVB on August 14, 1966 (by Pregnant Guppy aircraft) and followed closely by the first stage S-IC on September 12, arriving by barge." In the first phrase you use parentheses, in the second, parenthetical comma. Suggest using parentheses for both.
OK.
  • "The Apollo 1 fire on January 27, 1967, that killed three astronauts during a launch pad test, threw NASA's schedules into further question—even though AS-501 was uncrewed, NASA officials wanted to closely examine its CSM. NASA had planned to restack the vehicle once this was done,[14] but after the fire that destroyed its sister craft, CSM-017 was subjected to an intensive inspection that found a total of 1,407 errors in the spacecraft". This is not clear: did NASA officials wanted to closely examine its CSM before the fire?
The source says "Although Apollo 4 was an unmanned mission, NASA officials wanted to give command-module 017 a close examination." I guess even closer than planned.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other problems were discovered, such as the discovery of an errant bolt in one of the J-2 engines, with NASA concerned both to retrieve the surplus hardware item and to ensure that nothing similar happened again" You mean the bolt?
Yes. "it" won't do and I don't want to repeat "bolt".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "something allowing protection from Florida's weather for equipment and personnel" Suggest deleting "something"
  • "NASA public relations head Julian Schneer" should be "Julian Scheer"
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Previously, the way Wernher von Braun's team at the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the old NACA Langley Research Center engineers tested new rockets was by testing each stage incrementally" Comma after "engineers"
Recast.
  • "kilometres" should be "kilometers"
Done.
  • "re-entry" vs "reentry"
Standardized.
I think that's a quotation
  • "each of the Saturn V's three stages burned for slightly longer than expected" Any idea why?
The source really isn't clear on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to General Phillips" Drop "General"
OK
  • Link "NASA", "U.S. President", "Lunar orbit rendezvous", "Lunar Excursion Module", "AS-201", "LC-34", "LC-37", "heat shield", "atmospheric entry"
Got these.
  • "Launch Complex 39" and "apogee" are doubly linked.
Fixed.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I"ve addressed these things.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Splendid article, informative and interesting. A handful of minor quibbles about the wording:

  • The Apollo 1 fire on January 27, 1967, that killed three astronauts during a launch pad test, – for a non-restrictive clause such as this I think you need "which" rather than "that"
  • bleachers – che?
  • provided the launch crew with invaluable experience – "invaluable" strikes a slightly editorial note without a citation. I think an uncited "valuable" would pass without comment.
  • Also wanted was data … and to evaluate – I'm not quite sure but I think we have a singular verb with plural objects.
  • and this was due not because of the performance … but because the burn – "due … because" seems wrong here: I'd be inclined to replace both instances of "because" with "to", though that change would necessitate a bit of tidying up at the end of the sentence.
  • was transferred to the Smithsonian – the Smithsonian what? A link or fuller title or both would be good here.

Nothing to frighten the horses there, and I'll look in again in the confident expectation of adding my support. – Tim riley talk 23:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reviews. I've completed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good! After a final read-through I am now happy to add my Support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is well and widely sourced, evidently comprehensive and balanced, splendidly illustrated, and a pleasure to read. Tim riley talk 15:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

A great thing about NASA-related articles is the quality of images.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in good shape, but I'm a little concerned with close paraphrasing. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • Apollo 4 (November 9, 1967, also known as AS-501) - bit clunky. I'd suggest moving the alternate designation out of the brackets.
OK.
  • "it had not even been finalized what sort of spacecraft would be used" - bit awkward
Rephrased.
  • Did Phillips send a team to North American, or form part of the team himself? The Phillips Report article says the latter.
He went. Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dozens of haphazardly routed and skinned wires were short circuits just waiting to happen. NASA managers came to see the problems for themselves. Director of Launch Operations Rocco Petrone was said to have cursed; Apollo Spacecraft Program Office manager Joe Shea welled up in tears; and Phillips stood in stunned silence." - this wording is very close to that in the source.
That was already in the article when I started work and I should have checked the phrasing more carefully. I've rephrased where possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been caught out with a similar issue with 'legacy' text that proved problematic at a review, so no dramas. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On November 6, 1967, the 56½ hour countdown sequence" - what time on 6 November did this start? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. I've gotten all those. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Balon Greyjoy[edit]

I added two {{nbsp}} templates where a date/mission was broken up up into two separate lines. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • "U.S. President John F. Kennedy challenged his nation" This comes across as WP:POETIC; maybe something more like "Kennedy presented his goal to land"
I think it's OK as is; the language has been used in several Apollo articles, see Apollo 13 and Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins. It's an accurate description of what Kennedy did.
I disagree. Not a dealbreaker for me for the FAC, but I do not think it comes across as encyclopedic writing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "proposed".
  • "what launch vehicle to use:" I would expect the use of a colon to precede a list of potential options, but the sentence goes on to say that the decision hadn't been finalized. Additionally, I think this sentence in unnecessary as the next paragraph is all about the decision process of how to actually land on the moon.
Cut.
  • "early flights of Apollo equipment" Is this referring to just the 3 Saturn IB launches? To be clear which launches this refers to, I would say "The first three flights of Apollo equipment..."
Done with some variation.
  • "This smaller launch vehicle did not use the facilities at KSC" This is out of place in a paragraph about how the Saturn IB tests related to Saturn V vehicles, especially since the previous paragraph states that Apollo 4 was the first launch out of KSC. I'm assuming it relates to the later quote about LC-34/LC-37 and automated checkout, but it isn't really clear how its applicable in that sentence.
It's background to the need to qualify the ground facilities at KSC for crewed flight. The IB flights did not do that, this was a part of the purpose of Apollo 4.
I would add this background to the previous paragraph, when it mentions that Apollo 4 was the first flight out of KSC. The phrase "issues resolved by Saturn IB flights" sounds like it is referring to flight hardware; it doesn't make it seem like ground crews at KSC would be similarly prepared without a launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the need to qualify the ground systems to the background.
  • "launched by Saturn V's" I'm assuming this is referring to plural Saturn V rockets? It should be "launched by Saturn V rockets".
Done slightly differently.
  • The Benson and Flaherty can be paraphrased/shortened. I would work into the previous sentences how LC-34/37 tests founds issues with the automated checkout that were corrected prior to Apollo 4. Additionally, its mention of the delay before Apollo 4 comes before the article discusses the delay; I think that part can be removed.
I think deleting the little we say about checkout procedures, which arguably aren't as sexy as big rocket fly into sky, would be a mistake. I know you don't like quotes, and this is an area that we differ in.
Delays
  • I like the two images of the vehicle, but it causes MOS:SANDWICH; could one be moved to later in the article?
The images are exactly where they should be, since they are discussing what is going on in the adjacent text. I've shortened the first caption, that should help.
Could you crop out the top third of the infobox picture? The picture is really tall, with much of it just being the sky. That would reduce the real estate that the infobox takes up and make the sections less crowded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've substituted a different image of the launch.
  • "and left little spare time for delay" It's not really clear why there is no time for delay, as this discusses how it is to be launched after Apollo 1 (so it's not like an Apollo 4 launch delay causes an Apollo 1 delay).
No, but they're going to need Saturn V for at the latest the fourth crewed mission with appropriate lead times.
I understand there are other timing constraints outside of Apollo 1, but that's not clear from the article. There's no mention of later missions, just the previous Apollo 1 mission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've eliminated the reference to the crewed mission, and added that more Saturn V missions were to follow.
  • "Phillips led a team sent to North American in" I'm assuming Phillips made the decision to send the team, so wouldn't it be enough to just say "Phillips led a team to..."? Additionally, I would say "to the North American plant/factory" as the company name isn't necessarily a location.
Done, more or less.
  • "but after the fire that destroyed its sister craft, CSM-017 was subjected to an intensive inspection" This seems repetitive, as the previous sentence mentions the fire fire and that CSM-017 underwent a close examination. Additionally, it's not explained until later in the article that CSM-017 is the Apollo 4 CSM.
Rephrased.
  • "NASA managers came to see the problems for themselves." This makes it seem like it was a special trip for the Apollo program directors, weren't they all working out of KSC where the spacecraft was being inspected?
According to the Apollo 4 press kit, Phillips was Headquarters (DC), Low (who replaced Shea) was Houston and Petrone was KSC.
  • "Director of Launch Operations Rocco Petrone was said to have cursed; Apollo Spacecraft Program Office manager Joe Shea wept; and Phillips was stunned and silent." This seems like an unnecessary detail/anecdote; these are all pretty typical responses.
My inclination is to leave it in. It serves to illustrate a reaction by people in an article which mostly focuses on machines.
I understand there should be mention of the human factor, but regular things like someone dropping some profanity or crying? It's not like Petrone was known as someone who was mild mannered and would never curse. I'm willing to bet that Petrone wasn't the only one who dropped some choice words, and that they all had moments of stunned silence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cut.
  • "Other problems were discovered, such as the discovery of an errant bolt in one of the J-2 engines, with NASA concerned both to retrieve the surplus hardware item and to ensure that nothing similar happened again" I assume the larger issue with this bolt being found is preventing things like it from happening; this makes it seem like there was equal effort in bolt retrieval (presumably a relatively quick job) and overall problem prevent (a big task).
Rephrased.
  • "disclosed 1,200 problems with the vehicle" Which vehicle is this? The previous paragraph mentions 1,407 errors with the CSM alone; I'm assuming this is for one of the stages?
Clarified.
  • "its launch site, something allowing protection from Florida's weather for equipment and personnel" I would replace "Florida's weather" with something like "severe weather" since the average reader may not know about the danger of Atlantic hurricanes and think Florida is all sun and beach weather. Additionally "something allowing protection" could be shortened to "protected/protecting" something like "its launch site, protecting equipment and personnel from severe weather"
Hurricanes are a minor issue for outdoor equipment in Florida (speaking as a Floridian). It's sitting outside in the heat and humidity. Changed "weather" to "climate"
Hurricane Michael vs. Tyndall Air Force Base (my old stomping ground) would beg to differ. But seriously, I think adding adding "Florida's hot and humid climate" would clear up what the dangers are.
Equipment
  • "disastrous fire that took their lives" This comes across as WP:EMPHATIC; it has already been mentioned that the Apollo 1 fire killed the 3 crewmembers. I would just shorten it to say that the the astronauts had been trapped inside the CM during the fire.
    Think this point was overlooked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I got it. Cut the word "disastrous".
  • "Apollo 4 was the Saturn V's first flight" This makes it sound like the specific Saturn V would fly multiple times. Maybe change it to "Apollo 4 was the first flight of a Saturn V rocket"
Public interest and media coverage
  • "Others in the NASA family—government workers, contractor employees and their dependents—" It's more clear to use "NASA workers and their dependents", since using "family" to describe a workplace is a figure of speech.
Done.
Launch and flight
  • "November 6, 1967 at 10:30 pm (0330 on November 7 UT)" and "November 9 at 7:00 am EST (12:00 UTC)" have different formats/ways of referring to UTC. This should be standardized (my preference is the latter one)
Done.
I added a time zone to the 10:30 pm, colon to "0330", and an nbsp template. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "11,168 meters per second (36,639 ft/s)" I think converting to mph is a better unit to convey the high speed, but that's just my personal preference.
I'd rather leave it as is.
Onboard cameras
  • "The photographs were not of sufficient resolution to obtain detailed scientific data, but were still of geographic, cartographic, meteorologic, oceanographic, geologic and hydrologic interest." It doesn't make much sense to say there wasn't much data to be used from these photos, and then list 6 scientific disciplines that they were useful for. I would either remove this sentence, or expand on how these photos were used for research purposes.
At the time, these were among the highest shots taken. It's quite understandable that they would be of interest to scientists without being detailed enough to be of real scientific value.
I would then shorten it down to "Earth science" or the like, rather than list off 6 related Earth sciences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath, assessment and spacecraft location
  • "slightly longer than expected" How much longer was this?
Orloff and Harland, as usual, have all the figures, but I'm not sure we need such details in a big-picture summing up of the mission.
But why not say how much longer (e.g. "burned 1 second longer than expected")? The article already explains the effect this longer burn had (1 km higher orbit than predicted). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the exact figure to the discussion of the second SPS burn.
  • "A slight overburn" Is this referring to the engines firing for longer, temperature heating up in the cabin, or that the capsule landed 8.6 miles from its target? It's not clear what an overburn is.
Rephrased.
Since this is about the longer engine burn, it should be moved back to earlier in the paragraph. The paragraph mentions the longer engine burn, the good environmental controls, and goes back to the longer engine burn. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This discrepancy happened not because of the performance of the guidance system (which was exemplary), but because the burn had been controlled from Earth" Expand on how the Earth-controlled burn caused the fast and shallow reentry, since it's not really clear why the on-board guidance system wouldn't be controlling the burn.
According to the press kit, it was to be controlled by the AGS. It's not clear why the ground cut it off.
  • "Von Braun spoke of the mission as "an expert launching all the way through, from lift-off exactly on time to performance of every single stage."" What's the context on this? Is Von Braun complimenting the mission, or is it that Von Braun is being complimented.
He is quoted as saying that. I don't think it's unclear that he's praising the mission.
Who is the expert being referenced in this quote? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expert is an adjective, not a noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Phillips, Bilstein, and Mueller statements all say effectively the same thing, that the successful Apollo 4 mission gave NASA personnel the confidence that the Apollo program would continue. The Phillips quote is particularly long but is mostly him just heaping praise on the Apollo 4 mission. I think the quotes could all be referenced and paraphrased, and just state that Apollo 4's success increased morale and confidence throughout NASA.
I think quotations add more than paraphrasing. It's what people said. Yes, it was for public consumption, but still they said it.
I would at least remove the Bilstein quote then; it is a historian agreeing with Phillips. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the Phillips one instead. We don't need three NASA officials.
  • I don't think its current, but here is a photo of the capsule.
I'd rather not spare the space, the historic NASA photos are more important to have.
Fair enough Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on each of the Apollo missions that followed" Depends on if you count Apollo–Soyuz or the Skylab missions as Apollo missions, but they didn't use the Saturn V.
They were not Apollo missions. I'll change to "Apollo program missions".
  • "Although the Saturn V's stages gave more trouble than on Apollo 4" Maybe say what happened on Apollo 6? Something like "Although Apollo 6 experience pogo oscillation during its first stage and had an early second-stage engine shutdown, it was decided..."
    I see that this was addressed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Brooks, Grimwood, and Swenson quote block extends into the references section. It doesn't say anything that wasn't already discussed in the prose above. I would remove it to avoid crowding the References section.
I think it's an important third party big-picture view of the mission and should remain.
Why not incorporate it into the prose of the article then? Readers won't be looking to the references section to find that information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think quote boxes have their place and this is one place it's appropriate.
  • "The CM is currently on display at Stennis's official visitor center" I would add when the CM was put on display at the Infinity Science Center (2016, according to the reference). Additionally, it should say that it's the Stennis Space Center visitor center, not just Stennis's visitor center.
    I made this change. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've addressed all your points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just updated this with a few extra points and some responses. I'm traveling for the long weekend, so apologies in advance if I don't get back to your points for a few days. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your trip. I've addressed your points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on this article. While we still disagree on some points, I think this article is well-done, informative, and up to FA standards. Happy to support it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass[edit]

Version reviewed, spot checks not done.

  • I'm a little concerned that fn 2 (an explanatory footnote) is not cited.
  • Fn3: The author seems to call the page the "Master Satellite List" on this list
  • Fn16: I think "NASA History Division" is the website publisher, or at least should be added to the cite in some way.
  • Fn27: "CH9-5" should probably be "Ch. 9-5" to be consistent with the Benson refs.
  • Why is only one website listed under "websites", where there are others used as sources? For consistency, either all websites should be listed there or the section should be removed.

I have no concerns with the quality of the sources. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've removed ref 2 and done what you suggested with the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry for missing this. My concerns have been addressed so it passes my source review. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Apollo_4/archive1&oldid=1050630406"