Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neil Armstrong/archive3

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2018 [1].

Neil Armstrong[edit]

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk) and Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Neil Armstrong, who walked on the Moon and, for a time, on the Earth. I hope this article can be run on the front page on the 50th Anniversary of his Moon walk in July 2019. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Factotem[edit]

Completing the partial source review I conducted for the article's MILHIST ACR

Print:

  • Koestler-Grack's Neil Armstrong appears to have been published in 2010, not 2009 as stated in the bibliography.
    Changed to 2010. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad for not picking this up in the ACR, but the ISBN and OCLC links provided for Kranz's Failure is not an Option: Mission Control From Mercury to Apollo 13 and Beyond both link to Chaikin's A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts. The correct Worldcat entry for Kranz's work is here
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Worldcat entry as linked by both ISBN and OCLC for Nelson's Rocket Men gives the publisher as Viking, not John Murray. Would also point out, purely as a matter of curiosity, that the Book's subtitle in the title of that listing is different from the one given in the bibliography, though the latter is what is printed on the cover image in the Worldcat listing, which is odd, but not an issue for FAC.
    The subtitle is correct. [2] Changed the ISBN and OCLC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Online:

  • What makes Mach 25 Media a reliable source? Also, p. 25 states "Scheduled to check out MH-96 system", but it's not clear that this was the first flight of that system as stated in the article.
    Evans wrote a book on the subject, The X-15 Rocket Plane, and published this portion that was left out on the web. Added a reference from Hansen to support first flight claim. It can be inferred from Evans, but Hansen is explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.spacecollection.info/ reliable?
    Replaced with a NASA link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.earlyaviators.com/ reliable? Also, there doesn't appear to be anything on that page to support the assertion that Armstrong "talked about the exploits of the Brazilian-born Alberto Santos-Dumont"
    Added reference from Hansen to support this; removed www.earlyaviators.com. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.rightentertainment.com reliable?
    Replaced with a Hansen reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: Anything else you see that needs correcting? Kees08 (Talk) 19:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me. Factotem (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Delighted to see this and that we will likely have something to run a year from July. A few comments:

  • I think the lede deserves some mention of the quiet, indeed reclusive life he led in his later years, which isn't mentioned much in the body either.
    I need to go through my sources, but I am pretty sure he was perceived as a recluse more than him being an actual recluse. Heck, I saw him speak live without going out of my way to. I will do my due diligence and look through the sources, and at least try to address the perception of reclusiveness. If I find the sources calling him reclusive, I will also put that in there. Kees08 (Talk) 05:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope to get to this this week. Kees08 (Talk) 07:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Kees, did you get to this? If so (or when you do, hopefully soon) pls give Wehwalt a ping so he can have another look. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not yet; a combination of work related travel (limiting access to my books) and skimming the books to find the relevant sections are slowing me down a bit. Should settle out starting next week, I will start documenting my progress on the talk page of the Armstrong article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Can you give a summary here?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course; check Armstrong's talk page for my progress (did not want to clutter up this page). Kees08 (Talk)
    @Hawkeye7 and Wehwalt: Hawkeye, feel free to copyedit what I wrote. It both feels too long and too short to me..Wehwalt, let me know if this is satisfactory and if you have anything additional comments. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 00:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Houston replied" Consider saying the Capsule Communicator replied and name the astronaut who was serving as such.
    It was Charles Duke. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the very few personal items that Neil Armstrong carried with him to the Moon and back was a World Scout Badge.[11]" I might cut "and back". I don't think cutting it carries any implication that he left it there.
    But astronauts did leave trinkets there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know when Armstrong returned from Korea?
    In May 1952. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with music from Gilbert and Sullivan with new lyrics." I might change the second "with" to "but" to avoid repetition
    Good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " High-Speed Flight Station.[33]" Double linked in same paragraph. You might want to mention he was accepted once a position opened, as I assume happened.
    Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and attended a conference there co-sponsored by NASA on space exploration." I would move "on space exploration" to follow "there".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They practiced a "phantom rendezvous", carrying out the maneuver without a target.[63]" "They" is, I assume, Cooper and Conrad. However, Armstrong and See are the last people referred to.
    Changed to "cooper and Conrad" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission launched on March 16, 1966" given the discussion in the previous paragraph, I would sub "Gemini 8" for "The mission".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while Armstrong served as Capsule communicator (CAPCOM).[83]" I have more often seen "communicator" capitalized. I assume he wasn't the only one?
    Yes. They normally work in shifts, along with the Mission Control teams, since there has to be one there around the clock. They are normally drawn from the backup and support crews. But it's not unusual for other astronauts to be assigned as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be a little more buildup to the launch of Apollo 11. Can you discuss the training perhaps? And on the journey to the Moon?
This one remains, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am reading and digesting the material and hopefully will have something written by the end of the week. Kees08 (Talk)
@Wehwalt: I wrote a paragraph on this. Tried to keep it brief but informative. Does this satisfy your concern? Kees08 (Talk)
I don't see anything on training/preparation. Presumably they went someplace to practice lunar conditions, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I added; they only went on one geological training expedition. Kees08 (Talk)
There is a whole paragraph on training:

To give the astronauts experience with how the LM would fly on its final landing descent, NASA commissioned Bell Aircraft to build two Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV), later augmented with three Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV). Nicknamed the "Flying Bedsteads", they simulated the Moon's one-sixth of Earth's gravity by using a turbofan engine to support five-sixths of the craft's weight. On May 6, 1968, 100 feet (30 m) above the ground, Armstrong's controls started to degrade and the LLRV began rolling. He ejected safely. Later analysis suggested that if he had ejected half a second later, his parachute would not have opened in time. His only injury was from biting his tongue. The LLRV was completely destroyed. Even though he was nearly killed, Armstrong maintained that without the LLRV and LLTV, the lunar landings would not have been successful, as they gave commanders valuable experience in the behavior of lunar landing craft.

They only went on one geological mission because this was not the focus of their training; unlike the later missions, they were not going to be on the lunar surface for that long, or wander very far. Most training was in the simulators, but the Apollo 8, 9 and 10 crews all had priority. Apollo 11 only had top priority to use the simulators after Apollo 10 had flown in May 1969 (after which they only had to share with the prime and backup crews of Apollo 12). Later missions had far more time time to train and less competiotion for resources. Since most parts of the mission profile were covered by the earlier missions, Armstrong prioitised training for the part that was new, the lunar landing itself. As the article notes, training was also disrupted by crew changes; he lost his original CMP (Lovell) to Apollo 8, so Aldrin had to take over as CMP and Haise as LMP until Collins returned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " disputed that he had ever claimed coming up with the line spontaneously during the mission.[122]" Claimed coming up?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2011.[207] " I might change "the" to "a" as when Congress votes one, they make a new design.
    I did not know that. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually added an image of the medal in Collins' article, in case you wanted it here. There are some photos from the ceremony but I did not see any that were very high quality. Kees08 (Talk) 22:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a nice image, but I think we have enough here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on total quantity of images. If anything, I would replace the Obama picture with that picture, since the Obama photo is not mentioned at all in the prose but the Congressional Gold Medal is. I do not have a strong preference, I just did that with the Collins article. I leave the decision to you. Kees08 (Talk) 22:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've switched it with the George Bush image, because it suits the layout better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it all looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Hopefully this helps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Can you confirm the image review is complete and addressed satisfactorily? Kees08 (Talk) 00:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done yet; File:F9F-2 Panthers VF-51 over Korea 1951.jpg still needs at least one more readily accessible source URL rather than something that requires a login, and I'm still not comfortable with using a potentially misleading caption in File:Frase de Neil Armstrong.ogg given how it's disputed whether Armstrong actually said "for a man" or just "for man". It would be better to paraphrase in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See [[Talk:Neil_Armstrong#"That's_one_small_step_for_[a]_man,_one_giant_leap_for_mankind"_in_introductory_paragraph|this talk page post]]. The [a] is exactly as it should be: he did not say it but intended to, hence the brackets. Kees08 (Talk) 00:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Refactoring quotes like that with brackets is inappropriate as it incorrectly implies people used certain words when the truth is they didn't. That could easily give readers the wrong idea. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree here, as the brackets indicate that text was added that was not originally said. Here is a guideline on formatting. The exact quote from that guideline is [square brackets] for added or replacement text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text (see WP:ELLIPSIS for details). If a reader is confused by the use of brackets in a quote, then there is nothing we can do for them if they do not go out and learn about them. The same goes for emdashes, semicolons, or any other literary element. The article text also makes it very clear on what he said, if anyone does not understand the brackets and needs additional clarification. Kees08 (Talk) 01:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is an historic quote, and paraphrasing makes no sense at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I will let you take care of the F9F-2 photo however you wish to. Kees08 (Talk) 01:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our standards do not require a more readily accessible source URL rather than one that requires a login, but added a link to the National Aviation Museum facebook page Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John[edit]

In the test pilot section, Armstrong's record altitude is mentioned three times (all with slightly different altitudes!). It should be possible to rewrite this so it flows better. --John (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • See what you think; I've had a hack at it.--John (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*The alt-text descriptions need some work; they are no longer a requirement but if we are to have them they should be better than this. --John (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC) I sorted out the alt-text, and removed a couple of pictures I thought were superfluous. I'm happy to support now. Nice work. --John (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes, especially to the ALT text. Much appreciated. Moving the bit about the boy scouts into the footnote was a brilliant idea. Wish I'd thought of that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also would like to thank you for alt text, did a great job! Kees08 (Talk) 07:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

I've begun the checks, but I will be offline for most of the next 48 hours. Here's what I have so far (ref numbers are per this version):

  • Ref 6: "CBS News" is not a newspaper, as you have it in the template. The "publisher=" field will get rid of the inappropriate italicisation.
  • Ref 14: pp error
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26: I would give the publisher as "Purdue University", rather than just "Purdue" which is meaningless to non-Americans
  • Ref 66: publisher clarification required – it is Yaroslavl Regional Government
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 79: I think the publisher is "Military Times Hall of Valour" tather then "Military Times"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 171: ndash not hyphen required in page range
  • Ref 190: (Twitter) How can this citation be verified?
    Replaced with a NASA reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to complete the review soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the sources review (ref numbers per this version):

  • Ref 110: This and ref 111 both link to the same source. One or other of them is presumably wrong.
    They are both correct; 111 also contains some commentary on touchdown time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 110 is titled: "The First Lunar Landing, time 109:45:40". This time signature does not appear in the source: I believe it should be 102:45:40, hence the confusion. Incidentally, the quotation from Armstrong that you've incorporated into the reference needs a citation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 112: How to use this? AS11 PA0 does not feature in the links
    It does. Switched reference to point to the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You've switched to a 580-page document, with no page reference, so this is not useful. As it's one of three citations to this sentence, do you actually need it at all? Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 117: What makes Snopes.com a quality reliable source?
    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 25#Snopes.com Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 123: Paywall, therefore add subscription template
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 125: CNN should be de-italicised (see Ref 207)
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 128: Why is "University of Pennsylvania" shown as publisher of the Language Log?
    It's on their web site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the university have editorial control over the site? The fact that it's run by one of their staff doesn't mean they have responsibility for it. I'm not questioning the site's reliability, just the publisher detail
  • Ref 133: The publisher appears to be ThoughtCo, not About.com (which I believe no longer exists)
    Switched to the archived version. Thought.co article is not what we want. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 133: Italicise per Ref 121
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 154: Is Atlas Obscura a print source? If not, italicisation inappropriate.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 179: see 133 above
    Thought.co does not take you to the right place, so switched to the archived version. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 185: see 125 above
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 186: Wall Street Journal requires italics
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 215: Paywall, see 123 above
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 220: I'm not sure that "Federal Department Library program" can be described as the publisher here. Probably US Government Publishing Office.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 222: Compare format with Ref 124
    Compared. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 224: Check link – this doesn't appear to go to the right source
    Works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 226: Fox News a reliable source?
    Yes, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 237#Is Fox News a WP:RS Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of points for the bibliography: ISBN formats should be constant, and "Penguin books" should be "Penguin Books".
    US government publications don't have ISBNs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not my point – I'm talking about ISBN formats. See Kranz and compare with all others.
  • One final point. You have made extensive use of Hansen's 1999 biography, but none at all of Jay Barbree's more recent Life, published after Armstrong's death and therefore covering the subject's whole life. Any reason for not using it?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a copy. Hansen's biography was authorised, so it was authoritative enough for me. Jay Barbree is a journalist known for his purple prose, and the reviews were underwhelming, so I didn't feel like springing twenty bucks for it. Kees08 might have more to say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the audiobook; which I believe has some good information on his reclusiveness, I will check if I have a print copy. Been busy IRL so slacking a bit on responding in this review. If I do have it (even if I do not, I can buy it), were you looking for me to expand the article with information from the book, or to replace/bolster the existing citations? Kees08 (Talk) 09:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to bolster or replace any citations, nor is there is no requirement to use every available source. If you have it and it has something of value, sure. I note that some reviewers have challenged what he said about Armstrong's exclusiveness. He was more reclusive than Meghan Markle, but no more reclusive than most ordinary folk. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about bolstering or replacing citations. Barbree's book may have alternative "takes" on some of the information in the article, and perhaps a few insights that Hansen doesn't have. The argument about not having to use every available source doesn't really apply here – at the moment you're using one biography, written nearly 20 years ago when the subject was still alive, and ignoring a much more recent one – that bothers me from the aspect of FACR 1c: "[the article] is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I've read a few of the online reviews of the book, and while they often include criticisms of style and approach, they are in the main positive rather than "underwhelming" or dismissive. Is the audiobook a complete text? If not, I'm sure a library copy can be found. It would be worth spending a little time investigating this source. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book has no footnotes, so I will not use it. The reviews on Amazon are poor: "First Man was much better, more detailed, more scientific, more meaty. This book is fluff and narrative", "There are other, and much better, Armstrong biographies out there. This one reads and feels as though it was rushed to press immediately after the astronaut's death, and is absolutely full of inaccuracies", "I mostly quit reading after the statement in the account of Gagarin's launch, '...his weight being increased constantly by the pull of gravity'", "Having read most of the available biographies of the Apollo astronauts, this is one of the poorer ones... a simplistic re-telling of the Apollo era, with many inaccuracies and speculations", "shallow and basically 1960's hero worship. Not much technical information. Mr. Armstrong's post-FAA career and life is rather trivialized". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all thew reviews take this line but, fair enough, you have made a case for not using the source and I won't pursue it further. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

In the lede:

  • "When he stepped onto the lunar surface on July 21, 1969, he said: "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."" feels a little like random trivia. This is, I feel, particularly because of the place in which it is located. It just feels very random. I'd put it into the third paragraph, when we actually discuss the moon landing itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I always hate the first paragraph of biographies, they never flow well. I moved that statement into the chronological location for it. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Why no mention at all of his childhood at the start of the second paragraph? I think that it would be interesting to give a very brief mention of his place of birth, class background, that sort of thing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The second paragraph is pretty long already, and I think adding the childhood would be a little excessive for it. Kees08 (Talk)
    It's only five and a half lines long (on my browser), which is pretty short by Wikipedia FA standards. I mean, the FA for Happy Chandler, which was on the main page a couple of days ago had a second paragraph that was nine and a half lines long. That example, in my view, is unnecessarily lengthy, and puts of readers. But Armstrong is a major 20th century figure and can warrant more than five and a half lines. On a personal level, I feel that a happy medium regarding length is a maximum of eight lines for the second and third paragraphs of the lede (I used that for Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela). Now I'm not saying that you must pack the paragraphs out to eight lines, but I really think that you could boos it up to seven easily without any harm to the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why nothing on his impact, legacy, and historical assessments? The fourth paragraph would be ideal for that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the sheer quantity of awards and things named after him, it would be difficult to prune that list down for the intro. Maybe the Flight Research Center, First Man movie, and Congressional Gold Medal? Which things do you think should be added? Kees08 (Talk)
    You don't necessarily have to list the awards in the lede, but the fourth paragraph would be a great space to simply say that he was given a wide range of awards and that lots of things were named after him. Give the reader a quick impression of his cultural impact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Addressed comments. Kees08 (Talk) 00:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Pinging again, can you respond to the above? Any other comments? Kees08 (Talk) 03:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apologies for the delay. I saw the original ping but got distracted and then forgot about it. Will take a look now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, I'm a little bit concerned by the comparatively minimal use of material from the published biographies of Armstrong; I think that the article could be a lot stronger on that count, instead of relying so much on free web sources (The Guardian, Wired, Atlas Obscura etc) as much of the article presently does. There are many areas that I imagine could probable be fleshed out using those sources, particularly the "Life After Apollo" section. Despite this, I don't think that I would go so far as opposing the article at FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: been busy can you take a look at this? Kees08 (Talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: I went out of my way to add citations that were not from his books. I try to diversify the sources, so we are not relying solely on his life the way that he wanted it told. I will see if there are any important life events we missed in Life after Apollo. Did you have thoughts on my responses above? Kees08 (Talk) 03:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So did I. I didn't want the article to lean too heavily on a single source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl I finished up his teaching section; I plan to expand the other sections more. Let me know if the teaching section contains all the information you would like. Kees08 (Talk) 03:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot my books at home, but I should be back from work travel early this week and will try to finish this up. I want to focus on a comprehensive summary of the jobs he held in his post-NASA career. Kees08 (Talk) 06:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Can you take another look at this? I expanded out his life after Apollo. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 04:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Hey there, giving another reminder as this FAC has been sitting for awhile. Let me know if you have additional comments. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 07:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the tardiness, just been distracted with other things. I'm not really sure if there is anything else for me to add, to be honest. I don't think that there is anything seriously wrong here that would warrant a statement of opposition, although I think that it could profitably make far greater use of published biographies and other historical studies rather than online ones. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carabinieri[edit]

Hi, I hate to be the voice of dissent. I have not reviewed this article in depth, but since this review has been open for a while, I thought I'd post my comments, lest this FAC is closed. I have only checked a few claims in the article, but found some issues:

  • The article claims that "Armstrong is generally referred to as a 'reluctant' American hero". There are two sources for this paragraph. The first doesn't mention any facts from this article. The second only claims that his relatives referred to him as a reluctant American hero ("Praising Mr Armstrong as a 'reluctant American hero,' his heartbroken relatives expressed hope his legacy...")
    I think there are enough sources to back it up, but I've changed the text to say "Armstrong's family described him as a 'reluctant American hero'", and added a couple more references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, those sources weren't cited in that paragraph. If there's a reliable source claiming that this was a common description of him, I'd certainly encourage you to restore the claim.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article claims: "In March 1983, the U.S. State Department responded by issuing a global message to Muslims saying that Armstrong 'has not converted to Islam'". According to Hansen, this was only a message to American embassies and consulates in Muslim countries.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Use of Armstrong's name, image, and famous quote caused him problems over the years. MTV wanted to use his quote for its now-famous identity depicting the Apollo 11 landing when it launched in 1981, but he refused". This doesn't make any sense to me. How did Armstrong's refusal cause Armstrong any problems? If anything, this was a problem for MTV. By "identity" do you mean "logo"?
    What got my attention was "now-famous". Removed per MOS:PUFF. Replaced with station identification and a bit of explanation, as it's quite possible that it may change in the future. There's a law dating back to the days of crystal radio sets that says that a TV station has to identify itself every hour or so. They can just display the logo, but more often have a bit of audio and video too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not impressed with the sources used in the article. I'm seeing a lot of press releases, random websites. Surely, higher-quality sources are available for such a high-profile topic? Here are two specific instances:

  • "In May 2005, Armstrong became involved in a legal dispute with his barber of 20 years, Mark Sizemore" The source for this is the letter Armstrong's lawyers sent Sizemore. This is hardy the most impartial source and it also doesn't mention Sizemore was Armstrong's barber for 20 years.
    Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Purdue, he was also a member of Kappa Kappa Psi National Honorary Band Fraternity" This is sourced to a website that merely lists members of Kappa Kappa Psi and doesn't give any further context.
    What's the problem? The statement is supported by the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it only shows that the frat claims him as a member. I listened to the lecture by Hansen about Armstrong cited in one of the footnotes and he makes the point that people would consistently make up connections between themselves and him and that one should generally be careful about believing such claims. But even if we do accept its claim that Armstrong was a member, the site gives no further context as to how relevant this is or whether there is some other aspect to this that would have to be mentioned. The guidelines tell us to generally be careful when using primary sources and the FA criteria call for high-quality sources. I don't know that this is a high-quality source and have my doubts about a few of the other sources used in the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, Kappa Kappa Psi is a FA and we should make sure that it aligns w/ the Neil Armstrong article with respect to the outcome of this discussion. Hawkeye, can you find this in either of the Armstrong biographies? Kees08 (Talk) 06:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention in Hansen or Barbree, but I found a better source, which provided context [3], and have corrected the article accordingly. The claim was added (unsourced of course) on 22 June 2007. When I added sources to the article, I merely lifted the source from the Kappa Kappa Psi article. My bad. I might have removed it, but these things are often important in American military prosopography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some inconsistencies in the footnotes. Some names of newspapers are not in italics. One footnote citing an LA Times article lists the newspaper's owner. Same names of TV channels are in italics. The order of the author's names in footnote 119 is inconsistent.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected these. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more (the numbers of the footnotes refer to this version):
  • FN 130: Should those blog entries be attributed to their respective authors?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 160: Shouldn't the author (Sarah Bruhns) be listed?
    It should; added Kees08 (Talk)
  • FN 166, 208: Washington Post not italicized
    Should it be? I am getting confused on when to use newspaper and publisher parameters. I thought it had to be published in a newspaper for it to be the newspaper parameter, and online publishing received the publisher parameter. Can you or someone else correct my thinking on this? Kees08 (Talk)
    Okay, I think I have sorted out when to use those parameters. Changed parameter to newspaper for those two. Kees08 (Talk)
    In a {{{cite news}}} template, use |newspaper= for newspapers, |publisher= for TV stations etc. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 175: This is a talk given by Hansen. Shouldn't he be listed as the author or mentioned in some way? In any case, I don't quite understand why this is used. The Hansen book backs up the claim in its entirety and is certainly of higher quality than an off-hand remark during a Q&A.
    Removed fn 175. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should footnotes referencing reports that come from a news agency mention that agency? FN 201 does, 127 and 243 don't.
    I don't normally, but added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 206: Shouldn't Aldrin be listed as the author?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, added. Kees08 (Talk)

@Carabinieri: Let us know if we missed anything, and if you have further comments. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 06:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to answer. I'll get back to you this weekend.--Carabinieri (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry again. I've only managed to go through the first couple of section. Here's what I've found:
  • Footnote 6: Most of the information that precedes the footnote is not in the source.
    Added a bit from Hansen, with footnotes. It appears that originally the citation was correct, but some additional unsourced information was subsequently added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After returning to Purdue, he met Janet Elizabeth Shearon, who was majoring in home economics, at a party hosted by her sorority, Alpha Chi Omega." This is a little ambiguous. Does "After returning to Purdue" refer to this second stint at Purdue, to a later visit, or did he return for a longer time after that?
    Deleted "After returning to Purdue" to remove repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Armstrong returned to Purdue, where his best grades came in the four semesters following his return from Korea" Hansen doesn't really say that, as far as I can tell. He only lists a bunch of courses he did well in and then later says his grades slipped afterwards. That slip would also have taken place in those four semesters, no?
    No. Hansen is clear that his grades were now higher. "Sharper focus and greater maturity resulted in improved grades". But he had some sixes before (p. 58), so I've just tweaked the wording slightly. I've linked to Academic grading in the United States, specifically the six-point system used by Purdue at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri: Have you had a chance to revisit the progress made here to address your opposition? --Laser brain (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to stand in the way of what appears to be a consensus in support of this nomination so I've withdrawn my oppose. I still think that the article uses a lot of sources that are far from the best available. This has led to the article containing at least two minor pieces of inaccurate information that have since been removed ([4] and [5]). I would think that there are enough better sources – biographies, the literature on the history of space exploration, high-quality newspapers and so on – out there that there's no need to rely on press releases, websites, etc. But the overwhelming consensus seems to disagree with me, so I'll get in line.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carabinieri: There is no rush; if you need more time to review feel free to. I am once again away from my sources, so I cannot do another scrub of the article right now. If you want to make a list of what you consider the lowest quality sources I can try to replace them with higher quality. Another commenter had the same concern earlier. Kees08 (Talk) 01:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still here, with my books, for the next fortnight. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys, it's good to see this willingness to try and improve the article still further after a long review. I believe we need to close this and there is consensus to promote but I don't like leaving conscientious reviewers feeling a bit dissatisfied if I can help it, so I'll encourage you all to finetune referencing via the article talk page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MONGO[edit]

Having read the article twice and a third and fourth time with editing window open can find nothing major to complain about. Ran the various bots and the refs all come back as live and formatted appropriately overall. The article appears to cover the major details in sufficient depth to be both informative but not excessively so and properly balanced. I also checked duplicate links and found none in the article body that stood out. Noticed no missing non-breaking space issues. Saw a contraction like "didn't" but that one example was in a quotation anyway. Its an enjoyable read. All I can say is I am not sure why we cannot show current retrieval dates for the refs rather than from 10-12 years ago. Retrieved August 28, 2007 just looks like its not a current thing but that's a little quibble and does not impact my support.--MONGO (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2018 (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/Neil_Armstrong/archive3&oldid=852580662"