Talk:Apollo 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Apollo 16 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 27, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Moon (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Moon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Profanity in quotes[edit]

Please quote correctly. There is no point in having a quote saying "Oh <profanity>, I've broken the <profanity> thing!" when the whole quote is about <profanity>. In this case, substituting <profanity> for the actual profanity is hypocritical. If you feel that some readers will be offended by that profanity, omit the quote. If you feel it is important for the article, do not mutilate the quote. IMHO, nobody will be hurt by the correct quote. --Tob 14:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even sure there *is* a correct quote - Young muttered "oh my god" a couple of times, says te Lunar Surface Journal...
121:21:45 Young: Charlie.
121:21:46 Duke: What?
121:21:47 Young: Something happened here.
121:21:48 Duke: What happened?
121:21:49 Young: I don't know. (Brief Pause) Here's a line that pulled loose. (Pause)
121:21:57 Duke: Uh-oh.
121:21:58 Young: What is that? What line is it?
121:22:02 Duke: That's the heat flow. You've pulled it off.
121:22:05 Young: I don't know how it happened. (Pause)
121:22:11 Young: (Walking toward the Central Station) Pulled loose from there?
121:22:12 Duke: Yeah.
121:22:14 Young: God almighty. (Pause)
121:22:17 Duke: Well, I'm wasting my time.
121:22:20 Young: I'm sorry. I didn't even know...I didn't even know it. (Pause) Agh; it's sure gone.
...
121:23:02 Young: I'm sorry, Charlie. God Damn...
but that's as close as it gets to "<profanity>". I've removed the quote. Shimgray 15:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Succession box[edit]

How do I find information on creating succession boxes? I'd like to link Apollo/Gemini/Mercury/Skylab/Apollo-Soyuz to each flight, for example, Apollo 15 and 17 for the Apollo 16 article. I've hunted in edit but it is not immediately obvious where it is. GBC 18:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Dates[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm missing something obvious, but on what date did the craft return to Earth? --Chickenfeed9 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

July 24th, 1969 source205.175.123.207 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Try reading more carefully, genius. That was Apollo 11, the first landing. It may have been added since your question, but the date Apollo 16 returned is now in the infobox: July 27, 1972. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Photographs not art?[edit]

"As a photograph, it could not be interpreted as 'art'" -- huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.7.36 (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Read this article again ..[edit]

... and let's all agree that it could use a re-write with some better organization. To my eye, it's disjointed. 68Kustom (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This and the Apollo 17 article need serious work. Andy120290 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


This article has its priorities reversed[edit]

I don't think it is a mission of wikipedia to spread profanities people said 30 years during off-color moments. This may even be a WP:COI There is almost no detail of the science conducted on the mission, or what the results were of that science. The whole page needs to be scrapped and rewritten.PB666 yap 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What? What conflict of interest is there, exactly? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Propogations of profanities or off-color remarks is not an AIM of providing encyclopedic content on wikipedia. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."PB666 yap 15:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
IOW the promotion of the use of profanities because one thinks it funny or adds color to a character is not neccesarily in the interest or making a good page. Whereas researching important projects involved in A16 and synopsing that information with references is. Alot of time spent arguing what is relevant quotes of profanities is of lower interest relative to time spent on discussing the research aims of the project and the results.PB666 yap 15:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's the purpose of WP:COI. That someone thinks a quote is funny and that the article would benefit from it does not mean that one personally benefits from its inclusion, which is what a conflict of interest is. I'm fine with discussing the suitability of the quote from a neutral copyediting perspective, but first let's agree that it isn't actually a policy violation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the quote in the interest of the encyclopedia, or not? I think it is not in the interest, as with most of what is on the main. Funny is not a substitute for content, is joking on wiki-pages content? Answer one simple question, based on reading this page what experiments did Apollo 16 conduct, what new equipment was tested, where the any publications that resulted from the mission, about what? Leaving the quote aside, does the main serve a purpose, and inserting the quote it appears the author has a conflict of interest or minimally misdirected priorities. Take a little hint from someone who was on an open internet forum much longer than wikipedia has existed, that little road of content erosion only slides downhill. People who place profanities attract those who also do. Compare:Sharon Osbourne imagine they got through the whole article with barely a mention of profanities, hmmmmmm, yep, priorities here are reversed.PB666 yap 01:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
hints:
  1. Experiments on Apollo 16 spacecraft
  2. What is ALSEP-Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP)
  3. The descent stage base was the core of ALSEP, house equipment and was an information bus that operated after the ascent stage left
  4. What is different about this device relative to Apollo 15, 14, and 12
Summarily what is in the article versus what is not in the article-'that should be mentioned' is a good indication of the COI.PB666 yap 01:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to this discussion I have: added a [citation needed] tag to the quote, since it can't stay without a cited reliable source, and down-graded the article from B-class to C-class for WikiProject Space because the article does not adequately cover the topics mentioned above. (That said, there doesn't seem to be any evidence the low quality of this article results from what wikipedians call a "conflict of interest". It might result from one or more wikipedia editors having poor judgement about what should be included, but that isn't the meaning usually given to "COI" in wikipedia discussions!) (sdsds - talk) 04:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Need a good editor to work in latest news[edit]

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/durham-county/2011/jul/08/durham-teen-discovers-piece-shuttle-history-lands--ar-1190778/

A large piece was just returned to NASA. Since I am not exactly the most competent editor, I shall defer this to one who is better. Ethelred Cyning (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This has just been placed into the article; thanks, Tyrol5. Is there some reason we can't/shouldn't mention Kevin Schanze's name? He's mentioned in the news article, so I think his privacy can be presumed released; and no one's suggesting giving him his own Wikipage, so WP:NOTE shouldn't come into play. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added his name into the article. At the time, I didn't see any persistent need to mention his name, but it couldn't hurt. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apollo 16/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 01:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent article, very close to GA status. I have just a couple of minor concerns that need to be addressed before I pass the review:

  • Apolune and Perilune: According to Apsis, the forms Apocynthion and Pericynthion were preferred during the Apollo program. Perhaps we should use those instead?
Yes check.svg Done
  • In the Lunar Surface section, a direct quote from geologist Don Wilhelms needs an immediate citation.
Yes check.svg Done
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This review is being placed Good article on hold on hold for a minimum of seven days to allow the above concerns to be addressed.

Thanks. Grondemar 06:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed both of your concerns. Thanks very much for your review. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my concerns; I can now Good article pass this good article nomination. Congratulations! Grondemar 21:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)