Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 17/archive1

Apollo 17

Apollo 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Apollo 17/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Tyrol5 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... the final, at least until now, crewed mission to the Moon.Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Pleased to join Wehwalt in the nomination. Look forward to your review and comment. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 21:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

Oh wow. We're up to Apollo 17. Guess that coverts all the Apollo missions. Comments:

• "James McDivitt, who would command Apollo 9" Suggest "commanded Apollo 9"

  Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• "the Apollo 11 crew had had one" Suggest "had only one"

  Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest mentioning that Overmyer, Fullerton and Parker were from NASA Astronaut Group 7? (I would source from Compton, Where NO Man Has Gone Before, p. 377 instead)

  Have updated the source; thanks for that. However, Parker was in Group 6. I took your suggestion to imply the Group 7 commonality as something worth mentioning, so I've left that be for now. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest stating that the 1969 US election was in November 1972.

  Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would source this from Logsdon, After Apollo?: Richard Nixon and the American Space Program. Haven't got the book here, but I will get the page number when I return; it would benefit the reader looking it up because there is a good discussion of this there, and how the Apollo 13 failure spooked Nixon.

  I actually don't have a copy of this one on my shelf (though it looks to be an interesting read), so will defer to Wehwalt/you on completing the discussion and referencing it properly. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was able to download a copy. What are you suggesting should be sourced to it, Hawkeye7?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I guess it's the Nixon thing. I've added more on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's right - I just thought it would be a more useful source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Preparation subsection uses abbreviations that have not yet been defined. Suggest moving this subsection down to the bottom of the "Spacecraft and launch vehicle" subsection where they are.

  Would like to give a bit of thought as to how to rearrange; it's a good suggestion, but some of the other non-equipment related discussion (e.g. timing re: the '72 election) should probably go elsewhere if the subsection moves down. Putting a pin in this one for now. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, I have moved the bit on the spacecraft and launch vehicle prep and assembly down to the "Spacecraft and launch vehicle" subsection as you suggest. Have also moved the bit about scheduling above to the renamed "Scheduling and landing site selection" and have added just a bit of context there to help with flow. I trust this addresses the comment, but certainly happy to consider any follow-up. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 13:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Since there is a subheading for orbital science, suggest creating one for lunar surface science too, with the ALSEP and "other lunar science" subsections under it.

  Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Any reason why footnote 72 needs to repeat the id number? Or why the book is not in the bibliography?

  Have cleaned up the citation and moved to the bibliography. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Footnote 116 is bung

  Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• The NASA navbox doesn't list Apollo 17, so suggest dropping it.

  Flipping through the various other Apollo articles, I found that it was included in all that I had clicked on (five or six others), so I am inclined to leave simply for consistency within the series, but I certainly don't feel strongly about it either way. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work on this tomorrow unless Tyrol5 gets there first. FYI, Apollo 6 is awaiting a FAC slot and Apollo 1 and 10, I haven't had time for yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. Had some downtime in between commitments this evening, so have addressed many of the points above. Would like to mull over point 6 on organization. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Could you add what "cronopaque" is? I had to look it up. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sure. Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 21:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• You could note that the prime and backup crew assignments were officially announced on 13 August 1971. [2] (The replacement of the backup crew was announced on 23 May 1972 [3]) I think this would give the reader a better idea of the timeframe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Slayton ultimately chose Cernan and Evans. This passes quietly over the fact that Schmitt was not the only controversial crew member; the selection of Cernan raised eyebrows because he had flown a helicopter into the Indian River. (see the 18 October entry in the above link) There is an account of this in Kraft, Flight: My Life in Mission Control, pp. 346-348 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Good spots. Both of your suggestions above have been incorporated. Thanks again for your input, as well as for your support. Very much appreciate both. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 03:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

One strange anomaly. The References say Chaikin was published in 1995, but you override this to create a reference to Chaikin 1998. (My own copy is the 1994 Viking edition.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right. It is 1995. I'll change that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by from CPA

• There are several MOS:SANDWICH issues. Please remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've moved the crew photo inside the infobox. That's the only one I see. The other images are spaced and alternated as much as possible per MOS.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh

Will try to take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Short description: "6th and final Apollo space" — I'd suggest not starting a sentence with a number. Better would be 'Sixth'

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Per MOS:SMALL, small text should really be avoided in infobox.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Given the length of the article, the lead can have four paragraphs.

Expanded.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "several crewed spaceflight records" — suggesting to pipe 'spaceflight' inside the link

done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "110.52 kilograms or 243.7 lb" — upto you, though I'd prefer either keeping both the unites in abbreviations, or both in full forms.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "during an EVA of any type" — what is EVA? Extravehicular activity?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• kg is converted to lbs, but km is not converted to miles

That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'EST', 'LRV', and 'CSM' are never used again in the lead. Do we need to define abbreviations?

I see no harm in familiarizing the reader with shorthand that will be used later in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "NASA saved the time, money and effort" — oxford comma after 'money'?

No. I prefer not to use it and I think we're consistent here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "on the flag of the United States" v. "of the U.S. flag" — consistency needed

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• " it would have no effect on President Nixon's re-election campaign" — I'd mention his first name, Richard, as well.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• We have both "as on Apollo 15 and 16" and "Apollo 15 and Apollo 16"; suggesting to be consistent whether we need to repeat 'Apollo'

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "and they didn’t object." — fix the quote mark (’ to ')

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "confirm Einstein's" — I don't expect there would be anyone who doesn't know him; still, I'll suggest adding his first name, Albert

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "approximately two meters (6.6 feet)" — better write '2'

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "These flashes, described as "streaks" or "specks" of light," — described by whom?

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "on Apollo 14, 15 and 16, the " — oxford comma missing, I think

See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Approximately 500,000 people were estimated" — well, here, do we need both 'Approximately' and 'estimated'?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Overall, the "Mission events" section is very interesting!
• Not doing a complete source review, but just few formatting issues:
  • When Sfns are used almost throughout the article, why is Ref#104 ([4]) using {{Rp}}?

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• • Few ISBNs need to be hyphenated. Can use this tool.

Those are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• • Ref#119: "p. 10-37" — should be pp. and en-dash
  • Ref#123: "p. 10-38" — same as above
  • Ref#75: "pp. 26-1–26-14." — I don't understand which page numbers are cited
  • Ref#118: "pp. 10-34–10-38" — Mixture of hyphen and en-dashes

For the above four, this is NASA pagination, where there are double barreled page numbers (in the Mission Reports, most prominently). The pages in Section 1 start 1-1, 1-2, etc, then when you turn to section 2, it's 2-1, 2-2, and so on. As far as I can tell, we are consistent here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Completely optional, though I thing that "New York, New York" should really be "New York City, New York" —

Generally, I've rendered it "New York, New York", many times (and I was born there). I'm inclined to leave it that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I absolutely trust your judgement! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That is it for now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gotten the majority. I'll be back for the remainder probably tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

All done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

All good! Supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Kavyansh.Singh, I am taking this as a pass on the source review. Is it meant to also be a support as a general review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I seem to remember that if you amend an existing u template, it doesn't work right, so just in case, Kavyansh.Singh--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, I just did general review, as I mentioned, Not doing a complete source review, but just few formatting issues. I'd appreciate if someone else can take a separate look just on sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for the clarification. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Usernameunique

Comments to follow. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Crew and key Mission Control personnel

• LMP and CMP are unexplained.
• Where did the "one-sentence job description" come from (e.g., was it NASA'a official description of the job)?

Mission insignia and call signs

• CM? LM?
• Who was McCall?

McCall was an artist, who was noted for his work on space imagery. I've added he was an artist. I'm reluctant to do too much of an aside here. The other ones above are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Scheduling and landing site selection

• "a Soviet spacecraft could easily access the site" — Why would it be easy for one to do so? And why was that a problem?

  The concern was that if a Soviet spacecraft could easily access and retrieve samples from the area, an Apollo mission there might inefficiently duplicate efforts. I've added a bit of clarification, though neither the source nor the meeting minutes from the selection board itself are explicit, so I think we may be somewhat limited in what can be said there. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Link first instance of Taurus–Littrow in the body. Also, looks like it takes an en dash, not a hyphen.

  Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• What was the Apollo Site Selection Board?

  Have added bit of a description, and have added a cite to the minutes from the final meeting. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

• What makes Across the Airless Wilds a high quality RS?

Missed this. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Swift doesn't seem to be a space specialist certainly, but he's published several books and the only thing we're citing him for is that the astronauts sent further from their vehicle than any other space traveler. And judging by the Amazon page, his book got favorable reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Likewise http://www.astronautix.com/index.html?

That site was discussed here and the consensus appears to be that it is reliable and high quality.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Why does "Extravehicular Activity". NASA. Retrieved January 6, 2022." have NASA in italics and the other NASA sites don't?

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• In the short footnotes it's "Press Kit" but in the Bibliography it's "Apollo 17 Press Kit". Same for "Mission Report"/"Apollo 17 Mission Report" and "Preliminary Science Report/Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report".

Since these are short footnotes, and we don't cite from the other missions' materials, I don't think there's a risk of confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, but it's inconsistent and I'm not sure why fixing it is that big a deal that it's not going to be done. It looks ... unprofessional that we can't synch these up properly.

Just to be sure I understand, you think we should put "Apollo 17" before each of them? Just want to know before I do the work of doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Either put "Apollo 17" in front or change the bibliograpical entry to plain "Press Kit" - we should match what the source says for the document. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I've changed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• You need to be consistent and link all the "Lunar and Planetary Institute" short footnotes - some are, but some aren't. And is the LPI part of NASA?

I've standardized them. They are not part of NASA although there is a close affiliation.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, so ... at a rough guess, at least half the sources in this article are primary sources from NASA - not just lacking independence, but from the time of the mission. This brings up issues of not just using primary sources, but undue issues - if we're not basing our coverage on what the independent secondary sources cover, we're not following WP policies. We're verging into doing the job of historians, rather than being encyclopedia editors. Yes, we are allowed to use some primary sources, but when the sourcing for an article is over half to primary sources, then perhaps we have a problem. I'm not quite to opposing this but ... it's troubling.

I remember you made a similar point regarding the Apollo 12 FAC. Most of these are hybrid primary/secondary sources and we've avoided using too much of the ones that most resemble pure primary sources, the transcripts and the like. A number of the references to nasa.org are from far later materials, the Phinney book and similar, but probably the bulk are the descriptions of the equipment and experiments carried by the mission. Those are what they are. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did. And I'm making it again now. And it's worse here... I don't think making an effort to cut down on the use would be bad - because yes, we shouldn't be covering data/information that isn't considered important by independent secondary sources - we need to get away from the idea that we should do the historian's job, and instead stick to the encyclopedia editor's job. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Let me see what Tyrol5 can add.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I can certainly understand the concern in principle. I have made a pass through, moving away from NASA sources in a few places, where practical. It seems to me the bulk of the references to the sources in discussion are (1) clear primary sources (e.g. Press Kit, NASA data pages) in support of factual information about mission hardware, timelines, and experiments and (2) references to the Apollo Lunar Surface journal in support of particular details about events touched upon in secondary sources (Chaikin etc.) and key mission events whose centrality to the mission I think is not in dispute (geological traverses etc.).

In the case of (1), I don't think we (Wikipedia) are quite interpreting or providing historical analysis of or commentary on the primary sources we do cite, which are the most definitive and complete source of such factual information (as Wehwalt notes), and the details they support (hardware, experiments, etc.) are I think self-evidently important to this J-type mission whose focus was on surface and orbital scientific objectives. Coverage of the mission would be incomplete without such information. In addition, while the Mission Report was assembled and published by NASA, it is actually a collection of individual research papers, some authored by NASA scientists and others by university-affiliated academics, interpreting and summarizing the scientific findings of the expedition. In this sense, the Mission Report is a unique source functionally more akin to a secondary one.

In the case of (2), I view ALSJ as functionally a secondary source, and a hybrid one at worst. It is non-exclusively licensed to the U.S. government (where it is hosted online by NASA) and edited independently by Eric Jones and Ken Glover, who provide interpretation and commentary throughout based on interviews, research and their review of primary sources. While I can appreciate the concern, and have gone through to take a closer look at a few of the sources in view of the encyclopedic principles Ealdgyth quite correctly outlines (and will certainly continue to do so in view of continuous improvement), I think the sources currently cited are encyclopedically appropriate in context. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 01:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)