Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 17/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) 22 February 2022 [1].

Apollo 17

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Tyrol5 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

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)[reply]
  • "the Apollo 11 crew had had one" Suggest "had only one"
    Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Suggest stating that the 1969 US election was in November 1972.
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I guess it's the Nixon thing. I've added more on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right - I just thought it would be a more useful source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Footnote 116 is bung
    Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • You could note that the prime and backup crew assignments were officially announced on 13 August 1971. [3] (The replacement of the backup crew was announced on 23 May 1972 [4]) I think this would give the reader a better idea of the timeframe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]
I've shortened the infobox somewhat.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • Per MOS:SMALL, small text should really be avoided in infobox.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the length of the article, the lead can have four paragraphs.
Expanded.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several crewed spaceflight records" — suggesting to pipe 'spaceflight' inside the link
done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "during an EVA of any type" — what is EVA? Extravehicular activity?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • kg is converted to lbs, but km is not converted to miles
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • '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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "on the flag of the United States" v. "of the U.S. flag" — consistency needed
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "and they didn’t object." — fix the quote mark (’ to ')
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "approximately two meters (6.6 feet)" — better write '2'
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These flashes, described as "streaks" or "specks" of light," — described by whom?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Apollo 14, 15 and 16, the " — oxford comma missing, I think
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Approximately 500,000 people were estimated" — well, here, do we need both 'Approximately' and 'estimated'?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 ([5]) using {{Rp}}?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Few ISBNs need to be hyphenated. Can use this tool.
Those are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
Well, in that case, I absolutely trust your judgement! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've gotten the majority. I'll be back for the remainder probably tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good! Supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for the clarification. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Usernameunique

[edit]

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

Lead

  • "after the only launch-pad delay in the Apollo program" — The body qualifies this claim ("caused by a hardware issue").
Good point. Adjusted.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission broke several records for crewed spaceflight, including the longest crewed lunar landing mission (12 days 14 hours), ... longest total lunar surface extravehicular activities (22 hours 4 minutes), largest lunar sample return (approximately 115 kg or 254 lb), longest time in lunar orbit (6 days 4 hours), and most lunar orbits (75)." — Are these claims in the body of the article?
No, thus they are sourced in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Training

Spacecraft and launch vehicle

Preparation and assembly

  • Has "SM" been introduced?
    Introduced here. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KSC?
    Kennedy Space Center. Have eliminated the abbreviation as suggested below. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does it mean for radar to lock up?
    It's a radar malfunction. Rather than adding more technical detail here, have just referred to it as such. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent (and out-of-order) abbreviation for Lunar Roving Vehicle.
    Introduced abbreviation at first use. I think it's helpful to the reader to re-introduce the Lunar Roving Vehicle in the "Other lunar surface science" section, where it is discussed in greater detail, but I don't feel strongly about it. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, there are a whole lot of acronyms, and I'm not sure that all of them are helpful. For example, VAB is used only twice after it's introduced. Why not spell it out the second time, and just say "in the building" the third time? KSC, too, is used only twice—why not just call it "Kennedy"? There are also other acronyms that probably aren't needed.
    Have eliminated VAB and KSC as you suggest. A number of these acronyms refer to the full names of lunar surface or orbital experiments/scientific packages, which would be quite cumbersome to type out (and read) again, even with just one or two uses. Would want to avoid using informal shorthand to refer to them as well, as I think it would become unclear as to what is being referred to (as opposed to having a previously defined abbreviation). Will take another pass-through, though. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar surface science

  • "All powered ALSEP experiments that remained active were deactivated on September 30, 1977" — Kind of odd to start the section by saying how it ended. I might be inclined to drop it into a footnote.
I moved it to the end of the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heat Flow Experiment, or Heat-Flow Experiment?
I'm not finding this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you're getting at. NASA generally did not hyphenate compound adjectives in naming its gear.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of, it's another acronym that's used only twice.
Since it defies a one-word descriptor, I think it's worth keeping as is. The use of the acronym is in a short area of the text, it's not like we mention it again after a lengthy gap.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And speaking of acronyms that are barely used, this section alone has LSG (used once), LACE (twice), LSPE (once), and LEME (once). There are better ways of doing it—for instance, the LSG can just be called the "gravimeter".
I've called that a "lunar gravimeter", which takes care of the LSG. On LACE, I'm not able to think of a shorthand description that suits. I could call the "LSPE" a "seismic device" but that would clash with the word "seismic" a few words after. On the LEME, I could, I suppose, call it a "dust detector" but there was a different dust detector that flew on earlier missions, so I'd rather not. Open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar Surface Gravimeter, or Lunar-Surface Gravimeter?
See above comment re compound adjectives.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the equipment was to be left on the moon, how come the Heat Flow Experiment had been flown multiple times? Multiple copies of the same instrument?
I think from the mentioned fact that the Apollo 15 one had been emplaced, it's clear it's another device of the same type.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The LEME had a set of detectors to measure the characteristics of the dust particles it sought." — Kinda redundant. What about giving a sense of its results, as you do in this paragraph for the other instruments?
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other lunar surface science

  • Other lunar-surface science?
Are you saying that there should be a hyphen? I'm pretty indifferent on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Surface Electrical Properties" — twice given an acronym, which is used only once. Also, inconsistent capitalization. Also, why is an "E" for "Experiment" included in TGE, but the Surface Electrical Properties experiment is SEP instead of SEPE (and for similar reasons, why isn't "Experiment" capitalized")?
We are using the official NASA names and acronyms (they were very big on acronyms). It was the SEP. We add "experiment" for the sake of the text. I'll look at the acronym use later on today.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the inconsistency. Again, I feel it would be difficult to find a synonym for the acronym that would be intuitive to the reader, given we refer to the unit a couple of times over the course of the subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biological cosmic ray experiment

  • Biological cosmic-ray experiment?
  • Was "BIOCORE" the actual name of the experiment?
The acronym. BIOlogical COsmic Ray Experiment. That's NASA for you!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who died: Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, or Phooey?
Good question. The one who died was the third in numerical sequence, so presumably it was Fo. That being said, I don't have a source that says that the astronauts knew each mouse by an individual name, or whether that was how they referred to them as a group.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific instrument module

  • Scientific-instrument module?
  • "that has been reflected" or "that had been reflected"?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Light-flash phenomenon and other experiments

  • "one astronaut" — Which one?
Evans, at least on the outward passage. Is it worth mentioning?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just "Evans wore" rather than "one astronaut wore"? It's shorter and more precise. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the experiment work? Did the astronaut record when he saw light flashes, and they then looked to see if this corresponded to the passage of cosmic rays?
One wore a device over his eyes used to measure cosmic rays while the other two wore eyeshades. I did not think it was worth the space to get into the nuts and bolts of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evidence supports the hypothesis" — What evidence? Evidence taken from the Apollo 16/17 experiment?
See below.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might just be lack of sleep talking, but do the two sentences about lunar gravity have anything to do with the rest of this subsection?
This section is something of a catch-all, to encompass experiments that don't fit into the other categories. That experiment was one of the ones that was in the CM.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "to map this phenomenon", is "this phenomenon" the light-flash phenomenon?
Not, the MASCONs.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any results from this experiment?
The entire conclusion was "In summary, available results are consistent with expectations based upon geometrical considerations and upon the Monte Carlo calculations. First, evidence shows that, at least in part, the flashes seen by astronauts are correlated with charged particles traversing the retina. Further, since the flux of these particles is sufficient to explain the entire phenomenon, it is likely that all of the flashes originate in this manner. From our sample of two coincidences, we find no contradiction with the ability of the observer to discern in which eye the event occurred. Finally, the ALFMED technique has been demonstrated to be effective as a procedure for study of the light flash phenomenon.". That's what we got.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Launch and outbound trip

  • "This pause was the only launch delay in the Apollo program caused by this type of hardware failure" — Three issues here. First, whatever type of hardware failure it was hasn't been described. Second, previously it was said to be "a minor technical error", which doesn't sound like a "hardware failure". Third, is it really that surprising that this pause was the only Apollo launch delay caused by this type of error? It's not like the Apollo program had hundreds of launches, where you might expect to see repetition in errors.
    Have clarified this. The "hardware failure" is meant to refer to the sequencer cutoff, so have added a bit of description. Have also brought the descriptions into better alignment with the way the source describes it and have clarified that this was the only hardware failure-caused delay of the Apollo program, rather than on account of just this particular type of error. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 1:31 a.m. when it launched?
    No; the launch time was 12:33 am, as specified in the penultimate sentence. The launch window closed at 1:31 am. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a rest period" — How long?
    It was a sleep period until the next flight day, so I have revised it to say as much. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scientific instrument module" — Defined above, defined below, yet spelled out here. Should be defined only once, and not spelled out after.
    Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar landing

  • "Approximately ten minutes after the ignition of the DPS engine and the initiation of the powered descent that would land the astronauts on the lunar surface" — Could this not be just "Approximately ten minutes later, ..."?
    Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar surface

Split.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parker jokingly dubbed him that NASA's switchboard had lit up seeking Schmitt's services for Houston's ballet group" — I think you mean something other than "dubbed" here.
Fixed.
  • "in history to-date" — as of 2022? If so, {{as of}} can be used.
"As of", as I understand it, is to be used to ensure a future update. There is no question the Apollo 17 article will be updated if the Artemis or other lunar program advances, and I don't think a reminder is necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to award them honorary lifetime membership" — Upon their return?
The source isn't clear on when the president of the auto body union did this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solo activities

  • "having been assigned" — This implies that the reason he remained in orbit was that he was assigned observational and scientific tasks to do, when I'm sure it was the other way around.
    Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 19:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath and spacecraft locations

Wehwalt & Tyrol5, finally finished up. Left comments on the lead and infobox, and a few follow-up responses. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
Missed this. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swift doesn't seem to be a space specialist certainly, but he's published several books and we're citing him for matters of fact which he covers and could if necessary be covered by NASA sites, which we're trying to cut back on. And judging by the Amazon page, his book got favorable reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've changed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Let me see what Tyrol5 can add.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 Preliminary Science 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 Prelim. Science 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 the spirit of continuous improvement), I think the sources currently cited are encyclopedically appropriate in context. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 01:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with primary sources doesn't just lie in interpretation - but in weight. We should be summarizing what the secondary sources find worthy of mentioning. If no secondary sources cover this information - it really begins to be an undue weight issue. If the only place that considers some detail is the primary source - it probably isn't encyclopedic to mention it and it's verging into OR territory to cover it in a tertiary source such as wikipedia. Secondary sources protect us from undue weight problems by making that selection for us. A bit of usage of primary sources is not going to make too problems but ... this article heavily relies on the primary sources ... that's a problem. And I'm concerned enough that I think I am leaning towards opposing unless I can see that OR isn't taking place in what is being reported in the article. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example: "The launch vehicle was a Saturn V, SA-512, the twelfth Saturn V to fly, and the tenth taking astronauts to orbit. It was similar to the earlier ones that had flown on every mission since Apollo 8." which is sourced to the Apollo 17 Press Kit. If no secondary source chooses to comment on the fact that the launch vehicle was similar to all the ones before, by including this information, research is being done - it's pulling a fact out of the primary source and making it part of the information stream. It's also interpreting page 93 - which does not mention "twelfth Saturn V to fly" or that it was the "tenth taking astronauts to orbit". Or "Sector one of the Apollo 17 SM contained the scientific instrument module (SIM) bay. The SIM bay housed three experiments for use in lunar orbit: a lunar sounder, an infrared scanning radiometer, and a far-ultraviolet spectrometer. A mapping camera, panoramic camera, and a laser altimeter were also included in the SIM bay." is sourced to page 56 of the press kit. Again, we're highlighting things that may not have been felt worthy of being noticed by actual historians of the spaceflight. There is a LOT of detail in the article that is chosen by the editors of this article, not by secondary sources. Is it too much detail? Too little? We rely on the secondary sources to help guide our coverage but when so much of the article is sourced to primary sources, it's hard to tell if the article correctly summarizes the secondary literature. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likely some of the press kit material can be sourced to Orloff & Harland. I'll work on it tomorrow. Historians of the program may mention things like you've mentioned, but they may mention it in more detail for Apollo 15, the first J mission, and by the time you get to Apollo 17, they're focusing on other things. It's a series of judgment calls. And I'll defend the use of things like the press kit. It's no trouble at all to source the items carried in the ALSEP to secondary sources, but they may list them and not explain exactly what they are for. To explain to the reader what they are, we go to the source that was designed exactly for that, the press kit. It's what it was designed for, and it's hard to see that it is a poor use of a primary source.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orloff '04 covers much of the statistical and technical information as well. I've made a few tweaks to the text and the sourcing within "Mission hardware and experiments", but I am generally in alignment with Wehwalt's view. Nonetheless, I'll certainly plan to also have another pass through in the next day or so. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 03:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Thank you for a thorough source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... Here's another issue with using the press kit: "Measurements were taken while the TGE was mounted on the LRV, and also while the device was placed on the lunar surface." is sourced to the press kit. The press kit was released BEFORE the mission launched, but here the article says that "measurements WERE taken" ... saying what happened in the mission but sourcing it to something that came out before the mission launched. We have this issue again with "It measured the quantity of neutron flux found in the top 2 m (6.6 ft) of the lunar surface." and "Placed during the first EVA, it was retrieved during the third and final EVA. The astronauts brought it with them back to Earth, and the measurements from it were compared with the evidence of neutron flux in the core that had been removed from the hole it had been placed in." "In addition, as on Apollo 14, 15 and 16, the S-band transponders in the CSM and LM were pointed at the Moon to gain data on its gravitational field. Results from the Lunar Orbiter probes had revealed that lunar gravity varies slightly due to the presence of mass concentrations, or "mascons". Data from the missions, and from the lunar subsatellites left by Apollo 15 and 16, were used to map this phenomenon." and "The launch window, which had begun at the originally-planned launch time of 9:53 pm on December 6, remained open until 1:31 am; " etc.

Oh, and I missed https://www.drewexmachina.com/blog/ - what makes this a high quality RS?

According to the author's resume, here, he is a "freelance writer specializing in astronomy, astrobiology and the history of spaceflight with over 500 contributions to books, websites and print magazines including Scientific American and Sky & Telescope Also maintains the Drew Ex Machina website which regularly posts articles on various space-related topics with over 130,000 unique visitors annually." I would tend to say that makes him per WP:BLOG a "well-known professional researcher writing within their field", especially in view of his scientific credentials.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a word count - I exported the article as a pdf, highlighted those parts only sourced to NASA sources, and then counted the words that were highlighted. Approximately 3181 words of the approximately 9324 words of the article are only sourced to NASA sources. That's ... waaaaayyyy more than we should be using such sources. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the predictive nature of the press kit (the launch windows were set things and would not change). Regarding the word count, I think much less than that is sourced to primary sources of the Apollo era, and those mostly describes such things as the nature of equipment. As you've suggested, we've cut back a good deal on their use. There should be no objection to later matters from sites sponsored by NASA. Tyrol5 points out the independent, reliable nature of such works as the Lunar Surface Journal. Some portion of what you cite is attributable to the use of the books which are hosted on the NASA site (Phinney's, largely), and I don't think the use of these should be held against the article. NASA published the work, but the author was a former NASA employee, not a current one. In general, the later sites are setting out facts, and NASA has no vested interest in spinning Apollo, which for good or ill is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When counting, I did not count as "NASA" anything that was double cited to a NASA source AND another independent source. I purely counted things that had only a NASA source given for the information. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But part of the field of secondary sources we're using are either NASA sites, was sponsored by NASA's History Division, or has been acquired by NASA after original publication so that it can be released into the public domain, the ALSJ and a number of books. Those inevitably have nasa urls associated with them. I don't think we're using them inappropriately.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're down to about 2468 words exclusively from NASA sources, but I'm still concerned about this. I think we're getting into problem territory - we're getting into too much detail sometimes and the intricate detail is sourced to primary or non-independent sources, so it's causing not only some issues with use of primary sources but also undue weight. At this point, I'm going to opppose based on the problems just of undue weight and primary sources and non-independent sources. Besides the use of NASA primary sources, there's a lot in here sourced to contemporay newspaper accounts and to websites that I'm not convinced are necessarily the highest quality sources we could be using. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up. In general, I must register disagreement with the suggestion that there is undue weight given, as my sense is that much of the primary sources correspond to text which colors items otherwise discussed more broadly in the secondary sources. I think we also disagree on interpretation of UNDUE in this context; to me, the principle driving that aspect of policy is the desire to avoid misleading the reader. In this particular case, I could hardly consider the provision of additional—non-editorial, matter-of-fact—detail to help further the reader's understanding of the subject as encountering that threshold. To describe it as an UNDUE concern strikes me as a somewhat formulaic application of a policy that is, in my view, aimed more towards balancing conflicting viewpoints so as not to mislead the reader. I am sure we disagree on that point of subjective interpretation so, more productively, do you have a breakdown by section from the analysis you're looking at? I think we are diverging on what we are considering primary versus secondary sources (e.g. ALSJ, etc.) in addition, as you've not really said what you are considering as such. The only contemporary newspaper account that I'm seeing is The Toledo Blade, to which the text about the replacement of the backup crew is cited (together with two secondary sources). With clarification on the section-by-section and sources points, I think we can look towards tackling concerns in a more targeted manner. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to thank you for the review. I also must register my disagreement, for similar reasons. The NASA cites are about things that there are not likely to be disagreements. A gravimeter is a gravimeter is a gravimeter, and as inexorable as the law of gravity is its function, and a NASA-related source is not likely to describe it differently from a source thirty years after the fact in a book from a New York publisher, except that the NASA source is more likely to be accurate. I would also like to see specifics, the sort of thing that might be subject to bias if in a NASA-related publication, in each section, as suggested by Tyrol5.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to ping the other substantive reviewers (excluding the image review), Balon Greyjoy, Hawkeye7, Usernameunique, and Kavyansh.Singh to see if they have thoughts on this matter. It might also be worth pinging those who have performed source reviews on the other Apollo FAs, but I dislike pinging too many people at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose easily, it's not something I like doing. But, it is an undue issue. Wikipedia covers what is in the secondary sources. We summarize those secondary sources. The Apollo 17 Press Kit, which is dated November 26, 1972, or the Apollo 17 Mission Report, which is dated March 1973, are primary sources. They are what the secondary sources use to write their accounts. When we use them so extensively (And my count did NOT count when these two sources are used as "backup sources", only when they are the ONLY source for the information), we are not doing what we're supposed to be doing. Instead, we're doing the historian's job. As for undue weight - consider this bit in the article (and this is just one example) - "The instruments in the SIM bay functioned without significant hindrance during the orbital portion of the mission, though the two antennas of the lunar sounder as well as the mapping camera encountered minor issues. The indicator on the instrument panel for the extension of one of the sounder's antennas was not functional and the second antenna suffered an apparent stall during its extension. Despite these technical difficulties, both antennas were deployed fully and the sounder achieved its planned observational purpose. Similarly, the extension and retraction of the mapping camera took longer than planned (about four minutes, longer than the nominal two) and, though deployment and retraction was not otherwise hindered, the use of this piece of equipment was reduced to avoid exhausting it by overuse." this is sourced to pages 10-32 of the mission report. Does it not strike anyone that this is entirely TOO much detail about a camera in an encyclopedia article? This is why we rely on the secondary sources - they will help us avoid getting lost in the weeds. I'm afraid there's a whole LOT of this excessive detail throughout. And that leaves aside the problems of the use of some other sources (https://news2.rice.edu/2012/09/13/a-legendary-tale-well-told/ or http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/spacecraft/apollo17/timeline.html) where we're not sure where they got the information or places where information isn't quite supported (such as "Since Apollo 17's return, there have been attempts to photograph and plans to visit the landing site, where some of the mission hardware, such as the LM's descent stage and the LRV, remains. In 2009 and again in 2011, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed the landing site from increasingly low orbits" is sourced to https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html ... but the "Since Apollo 17's return, there have been attempts to ... and plans to visit the landing site" is not supported on that page that I can see. (As an aside, the other contemporary news reports is from the New York Times). I've given some examples, but they run throughout all the information and sourcing.
To make it clear - it's not that I think there is BIAS in the undue concerns, it's that by using primary sources, the article suffers from too much detail. We use secondary sources to help determine what should be covered. And to help us from getting lost into the weeds of too much detail. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm making is about "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text," from WP:UNDUE. That's my concern, not necessarily some sort of political/etc bias. On the primary - see WP:PRIMARY, where we're enjoined to "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Ealdgyth (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications. The text you cite from the WP:UNDUE page is the first sentence of the second paragraph; it contextualizes what was stated in the first paragraph, which identifies the underlying principle behind the policy—in particular, the avoidance of undue weight given to contrary viewpoints. This, to me, is what "undue weight" refers to, and that sentence you cite identifies ways in which it may arise. Secondly, as to your reference to WP:PRIMARY, we are not citing the entire article to primary sources, and I would certainly take issue with the suggestion that such sources have not been used with caution (though I am interested in the views of the other reviewers as well). You've also not provided breakdown of what you are counting by section, which I think would be helpful (my apologies if you are working on this already) to ensure we are on the same page, nor whether you are considering such sources as ALSJ to be primary. As an aside, with respect to the page numbers in the mission report, "10-32" is one page, in Section 10, page 32, rather than a cite to 22 pages of the report. A finicky way to number, to be sure. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to "Since Apollo 17's return, there have been attempts to ... and plans to visit the landing site", this is meant to refer to the PTScientists' plans to send a robotic spacecraft to the landing site. I will rework this a bit to clarify to what it refers. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 16:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning on doing a PR here in the FAC, so I don't have plans to breakdown my count by section. I did not count the ALSJ - just the Timeline from the NASA history division (which is minimal), plus the Press Kit, the Mission Report, and the Preliminary Science report (which, again, is minimal). 2000+ words cited to mainly the press kit and the mission report is a hefty chunk of the article, and yes, I do consider that excessive use of primary sourcing. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Preliminary Science Report is a secondary source and should be acceptable. We will work to minimize use of the Press Kit and the Mission Report, though. I trust that if we did that sufficiently, it would satisfy your concerns?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the ping, and having taken a detailed look at the discussion above and the article's sources, I think the sources look fine, and I appreciate the fact that the editors took the time to balance the details that could be sussed out of NASA's own publications with the desire to not go overboard. In addition, I think the source review struggles to identify concrete issues with the sources, and does not engage with valid points raised by the editors in response.

There's a lot to unpack in the oppose, not least because it seems to have started with one reason, pivoted to another, and then shifted to a third. The first reason offered was that many of the sources are "lacking independence", and that there are "undue issues". Three comments later, and the review claimed, for the first time, that the article has "a LOT of detail". And then the review turned to the idea that "I'm not convinced [the sources] are necessarily the highest quality sources we could be using"—which was not just a new critique but also an improper one, because the relevant standard asks for high-quality sources, not the highest-quality sources.

With that said, the source review seems to have coalesced around the idea that there are too many details, a claim which rests primarily on the article's use of NASA sources—which the review interchangeably terms primary sources. These are used for "at least half" of its prose at the first "rough guess", which was not reason for an oppose then, although it apparently is now, when the article is down to (it's said) 2468 of the 8877 words, or 28%. There are at least two problems with this approach. First, by its own admission, it ignores the structure of the article, which contains sections (such as "Mission hardware and experiments") which of course are going to be heavy on the details and lean more on NASA publications, as well as sections (e.g., "Aftermath and spacecraft locations") which are not. In any event, from my own review above, I thought it was clear that the details really are given in summary style—hence why I at one point asked for more details on how an experiment worked, and was told "I did not think it was worth the space to get into the nuts and bolts of this." The second problem is that the approach draws no distinction between NASA sources, and primary sources—which can be, but are not necessarily, the same thing. This was pointed out at least six times above (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6); the source review has so far ignored it. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might read my review without trying to paraphrase it for others. I noted that the primary sources are the Press Kit and the Mission Report. The other NASA sources are not independent, but I did not label ALL the NASA sources as primary. I did not "pivot" to another reason then a third. I added additional reasons as I dug deeper. I at first "guessed" then in response to the queries from the nominators, went to the work of actually breaking it down by numbers so that I had more than a guess. After the nominators eliminated some solo usages of the primary sources (Press Kit, Mission Report) I then recounted the words. I have several reasons for opposing. (1) the use of primary sources (Press Kit/Mission Report) extensively (2) which leads to too much detail that is only (I assume, since it's not sourced to other sources) from the primary sources (3) the worries about some other sources, including contemporary news reports, the Rice University press release, dexmachina source. I'm glad that you don't see the source use as a problem. I do. I've pointed out where policy backs my interpretation up, in my eyes. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what analysis is supposed to do: summarize, and respond. By contrast, one of the things that made the above review so difficult to parse is that it frequently does not engage with its responses. For instance, you asked "what makes [Drew ex Machina] a high quality RS?", and an editor provided what looked like a reasonable answer. You did not respond to that answer, but now cite it as a "worr[y] about some other sources", as if the answer did not exist. Too, you said that "there's a lot in here sourced to contemporay [sic] newspaper accounts and to websites that I'm not convinced are necessarily the highest quality sources we could be using." I noted, immediately above, that asking for the highest-quality source is improper, because the actual criterion asks for high-quality sources; you then repeated your criticism of "contemporary news reports", without responding to the fact that you applied an improper standard. (For that matter, you said that there are "a lot" of sources to contemporary newspaper accounts, then stated that there were only two. Two is not "a lot".) Nor does your above response engage with the point I made that more detail-specific issues will vary by section, and so supplying a single word count will not account for the fact that some sections, understandably, will have more sources cited to NASA sources. The point is, it is clear that you "have several reasons for opposing", as you say. But the above source review does little to move beyond these reasons to engage with what frequently seem to be very reasonable responses. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are now very few uses of the Press Kit or Mission Report, and what there is, is for the most part description of equipment, which is not "too much detail" in my view, but explanations of what the equipment is, and some of the events leading up to the launch, which are simply facts and would not differ no matter who reports it. I do not understand what the issue is with the contemporary news coverage, which is reporting such things as the change of backup crew. If you don't like the Drew ex Machina source, we can change it for this, but all it's reporting is that there were three deep space EVAs and there haven't been any more (hardly controversial since no one's been there since Apollo 17. I do think that even if use of primary sources was excessive (we can agree to disagree on that), this is no longer the case. I'd appreciate a reassessment in a day or so, and if necessary a punch list of what you feel remains to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's no Rice University press release, it's a report on a talk given by Gene Kranz about his involvement in Apollo 13, and this has been used, unquestioned in the FAs Apollo 12, 13, 14 and 16, added before the FAC and unquestioned in the reviews (I just looked at the Apollo 12 source review to refresh my recollection). It simply sources the job description of the mission director, certainly something Kranz would be able to speak reliably on. And there is only one contemporary news report left, from the New York Times of 1/9/1970, stating that NASA was stretching the remaining Apollo missions to no more than two a year, which is what eventually occurred. I don't think this is greatly excessive or controversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're down to about 1500 words and while I'm not real happy about 1500 out of 9200 words, it's not so egregious that I feel the need to oppose (and I did look at what the text is sourced to those things as well as sheer word count). I remain concerned but I'll leave it up to other reviewers to consider the issue for themselves. Unwatching now.(unsigned by Ealdgyth)
Thank you for taking another look and for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Balon Greyjoy

[edit]

Article looks very thorough, congrats on getting to the end of the lunar missions! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crew and key Mission Control personnel

  • "Meanwhile, Harrison Schmitt, a professional geologist before becoming an astronaut," 1. This doesn't need "meanwhile" at the beginning. 2. Isn't Schmitt still a geologist, especially in the capacity of this mission? This makes it sound like it was something long before the mission, rather than the reason Schmitt was an astronaut.
    Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 1970, however, Apollo 18 was cancelled." The "however" isn't necessary.
    Deleted. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "objected strongly to Cernan's selection" Is there a difference between "objected strongly" and just "objected?" It seems like adding "strongly" doesn't fit, unless there was a way that McDivitt objected that made it out of the norm.
  • "but ultimately acquiesced to Schmitt's selection" I think this could just be "but acquiesced to".
I've rewritten the passage at issue in the above two comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For Apollo 16 and 17, the final Apollo lunar missions, NASA selected backup crews consisting of astronauts who had already flown Apollo lunar missions, thus taking advantage of their experience. The alternative was to train astronauts as backup crew members who most likely would not have an opportunity to put their lunar mission training to use in-flight. By using lunar veterans, NASA saved the time, money and effort which would be involved in training rookies for these dead-end positions." These three sentences could be consolidated; they use a lot of words to describe NASA's reasonable rationale for wanting veteran astronauts. My take is: ""For Apollo 16 and 17, the final Apollo lunar missions, NASA selected backup crews consisting of astronauts who had already flown Apollo lunar missions to take advantage of their experience, and to save the time and money that would be involved in training rookies who were unlikely to fly."
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slayton created the support crews because Jim McDivitt, who commanded Apollo 9, believed that, with preparation going on in facilities across the US, meetings that needed a member of the flight crew would be missed. Support crew members were to assist as directed by the mission commander." Does this mean that the support crew will attend the meetings? The second sentence seems more in line with what my understanding of a support crew is.
    If directed to do so by the mission commander, I would suppose so. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a confusing way to word it; I would shorten it to start with saying that the support crews backed up flight crews at the discretion of the mission commander. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I've reordered and clarified a bit. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The flight plan kept Evans busy almost constantly" It's redundant to say "busy" and "constantly", as they both communicate he had a lot to do. I would just say "The flight plan kept Evans busy, making him..."
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Planning and training

  • " Additionally, following the cancellation of Apollo 20 in early 1970," Doesn't make sense to have "additionally" and "following"; I would scrap "additionally".
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nixon had been deeply concerned about the Apollo 13 astronauts, and, fearing another mission in crisis as he ran for re-election" The first part of the sentence makes it sound like a personal concern, but the rest of the sentence (and the preceding one) makes it sound like it was a concern over reelection.
  • "Some sites were rejected at earlier stages." Is this referring to the sites mentioned in the next sentences, or are these different? It's not clear.
    Clarified per below. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus, a landing in the crater" No need for "thus"
    Replaced with "For instance..." Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 3-4 sentences in a row that begin with "A landing". Could these landing site sentences be rephrased or consolidated?
    Have varied the language a bit. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the elimination of the above sites, three sites made the final consideration for Apollo 17:" Since the previous sentences describe the elimination of sites, this sentence can just start with "The three sites that made the final consideration..."
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mission planners took into consideration the primary objectives" Easier to say "mission planners considered the primary objectives"
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This would allow the scientists in the geology "backroom" to adjust the tasks planned for that site, which would be transmitted to the CapCom and then to Cernan and Schmitt. According to William R. Muehlberger, one of the scientists who trained the astronauts, "In effect [Schmitt] was running the mission from the Moon. But we set it up this way. All of those within the geological world certainly knew it, and I had a sneaking hunch that the top brass knew it too, but this is a practical way out, and they didn't object." This is confusing. The first sentence makes it sound like the backroom geologists have a lot of control. But the Muehlberger quote makes it sound like that wasn't the case.
    Have clarified that what Schmitt reported on was what the backroom geologists relied on in planning tasks. Schmitt didn't have time to do so himself on the surface, but the general thrust is that Schmitt had a lot of leeway in what he reported on, and could influence the backroom in this manner. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evans was trained regarding lunar geology" Wordy; maybe "Evans was trained in lunar geology"
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mission hardware and experiments

  • "Although this was not the final time a Saturn V would fly (another would lift Skylab to orbit), area residents reacted as though it was, and 5,000 of them watched the rollout," I know this information is from the source document, but it seems like there aren't any details on how area residents acted like it was the last Saturn V launch, other than 5,000 people came to watch the rollout. Is this a lot more than a normal rollout? Was there any sort of event indicating people treated it like the last launch? It just seems like an odd thing to mention when there are no supporting details other than the number of people coming out to see the rollout.
The attendance of locals in such numbers was presumably the manner in which they acted like this was the end of an era.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apollo 17 was the third mission (the others being Apollo 15 and Apollo 16)" Apollo 17 is previously lumped together with 15 and 16 in this article. I don't think they each need to be named here.
I'd rather keep the mention, but I've shortened it and made it more natural.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As gravimeters had proven to be useful in the geologic investigation of the Earth" 1). "had proven to be useful" could just be "had been used" 2). "geologic investigation of the Earth" is redundant and not very informative; maybe something like "to study Earth's internal structure."
I've rewritten this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sector one of the Apollo 17 SM contained the scientific instrument module (SIM) bay." This is the only mention of one of the SM sectors; it's confusing to have the sentence start that way since there's no mention of them beforehand. As there aren't any later mentions, maybe something like "The Apollo 17 SM contained the scientific instrument module (SIM) bay, which housed..."
  • "data pertaining to the composition, density, and constituency of the lunar atmosphere" Couldn't it just be "data to study the composition..."
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was designed with the intention of measuring the altitude" Wordy, maybe "was designed to measure the altitude"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that penetrated closed eyelids" I feel like it should be "that penetrated their closed eyelids"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Apollo 17 crew conducted an experiment, also conducted on Apollo 16" Repeat of "conducted"
Varied.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mission events

  • "and observers in Miami, Florida, reported a "red streak" crossing the northern sky" Was this anomalous? I've never been in Miami and watched a launch, but I would assume it is usually visible once the rocket is high enough.
I don't know. I've never seen one from my home in Palm Beach County, but I've never looked for one either. It could be because the launch was at night. The Apollo daytime launches might not have been visible from Miami.
  • There should be a little more information about the launch (any anomalies, normal information about its timing/staging/achieving orbit). The first paragraph is mostly about the launch window, then next paragraph is about the attendees, and then it cuts to "In the hours following the launch"
I'll look into this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on this. There don't seem to have been any anomalies worth mentioning.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the launch delay, Apollo 17 would arrive in lunar orbit at the planned time" This reads strangely, as everything else is written in the past tense. Maybe something like "Ground controllers chose a faster trajectory for Apollo 17 than originally planned to allow the vehicle to make it to lunar orbit at the planned time, despite the launch delay"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The crew also encountered a few issues during the outbound journey; one of the latches holding the CSM and LM together was found to be unlatched." This mentions multiple issues, but then only names one of them directly.If there aren't any other specific issues to name, maybe shorten it to "During the outbound journey, the crew discovered that one of the latches holding the CSM and LM together was unlatched."
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evans worked on the balky latch. He was successful, and left it in the position it would need to be in for the CSM-LM docking that would occur upon return from the lunar surface." The description of Evans working on the latch could all be one sentence, "Evans successfully repaired the latch, and left it in the position it would need to be in for the CSM-LM docking that would occur upon return from the lunar surface."
    I don't feel too strongly, but I am inclined to leave as-is. "Evans worked on the balky latch" is actually the independent clause of the prior sentence. Consolidating as you suggest would, I think, make the entire sentence a bit unwieldy. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deleting a planned visit to Emory crater." The use of "deleting" making it sounds like it was data being removed from something, maybe something like "cancelling a planned visit"
    Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latter were later detonated remotely, explosions detected by geophones placed by the astronauts, and also by seismometers left during previous missions." 1). "The latter were later" reads awkwardly 2). I feel like there needs to be another words before "explosions". Maybe something like "The explosives were detonated remotely, and their explosions were measured by geophones and seismometers"
    Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made of a stiff type of paper called "cronopaque", and clamping the "replacement fender extension" onto the fender." The "cronopaque" is the "replacement fender extension" right? It's confusing that it was two quoted names. Additionally, "cronopaque" doesn't come up again, why not say "made a stiff piece of paper by taping four maps together and clamped it onto the fender"?
    Have worked with this sentence a bit. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This did not prove to be the case; Shorty is an impact crater, but the orange soil is the remnant of a fire fountain" The timing on this is vague. I'm assuming this discovery was made after the mission, but it's unclear from this sentence. Maybe something like "Post-mission analysis revealed that Shorty is an impact crater, but the orange soil is the remnant of a fire fountain"
    I have worked with this language a bit. Indeed, per the source, it was post-mission analysis that led to the revelation. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused about the volcanic information given about Shorty crater. It says everyone was excited that they may have discovered a volcanic vent, but then says it wasn't a volcanic vent, but an impact crater with a fire fountain, which seems like it would still be categorized as a volcanic vent if it is spewing lava.
    I've clarified the description a bit. A fire fountain existed there long before Shorty did, leaving the orange soil. This soil was then buried until excavated by the Shorty impact. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The improvised fender had remained intact throughout, causing the president of the “Auto Body Association of America” to award them honorary lifetime membership" I'm assuming the award didn't occur during the mission, but this reads like it did.
The source is unclear. The president of the association was moved by the improvised repair to award the memberships. It's not certain whether this was during or post the mission. This seems a minor point on which the focus is on that it happened at all, and there is no need for a specific timing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some {{nbsp}} in between "December" and the date.
  • "docked with the CSM, in which Ron Evans had remained," I don't think Ron Evans needs a mention, since the entire section before this is about his time alone in the CSM.
I've rewritten this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The unoccupied ascent stage was then remotely crashed into the Moon on purpose in a collision recorded by seismometers" I think saying that it was "remotely crashed" implies its impact was on purpose. Something like ""The unoccupied ascent stage was then remotely crashed into the Moon, and its impact was recorded by seismometers"
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misc comments

That's all I have; nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think we're up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent effort Wehwalt and Tyrol5! It's an easy decision to support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous comments

[edit]
  • a.m. or am? Could you standardise. I have already tweaked an AM. And maybe check pm/p.m.? Thanks.
    Have standardized to a.m. and p.m. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 22:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be a number of hyphens in works cited which should me en dashes.
    Believe I've converted them all, as appropriate. You might see that there are hyphens in lieu of en-dashes in some of the page number ranges, namely for the Preliminary Science Report (see, e.g., FN 82). This was intentional, as the page numbers refer to a section number, and then the page within such section (i.e. 26-1 is page 1 of Section 26). Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 22:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2022 (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_17/archive1&oldid=1073489008"