Talk:Samuel C. Phillips

The very model of a modern Major General

When Phillips served as NASA Apollo Program Director, he was a Lieutenant general (three stars), so he must have risen to four-star General subsequent to this. Does anyone have info on when he received his promotions to Brigadier general (one star), Major general (two stars), etc.? JustinTime55 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, guys. (Surely I'm not the only one who cares about this article, am I?) I've discovered Phillips signed the Atwood memo as Major General; Wilford lists him as Lieutennant General in context with Apollo 10, which would have been close to the time he left NASA. (The naming is counter-intuitive; even though a Major outranks a Lieutenant, the Lieutenant General (***) outranks the Major General.) JustinTime55 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

B class. I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical. From Marathon to Waterloo in order categorical. Djmaschek (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 03:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a gander shortly. Zawed (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This is looking pretty good.

• Can anything verifiable be added regarding his service in WWII? There is an image of him in a P-51.

  Um, yes. This might take a few days though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've expanded it as best I could. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Phillips agreed that it was necessary. agreed with who? Or perhaps this should be "believed that it was necessary".

• Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Phillips privately wrote to Mueller commanding that the president; commanding or requesting? Was Phillips higher up the chain relative to Meuller?

  Y Wrong word: should have been "recommending". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Some dupe links; Apollo Program and Air Force Systems Command, both in the lead; World War II, Saturn V, General

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Image tags all check out.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

That looks all good to me. Passing as GA as I believe that this article meets the relevant criteria. Zawed (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

General Samuel C. Phillips

• ... that Wernher von Braun claimed that General Samuel C. Phillips (pictured) was the man most responsible for putting the pieces of the Apollo program together and making them work? Source: "Before the launching of Apollo 10, in May 1969, Dr. Wernher von Braun, director of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., singled out General Phillips as the man to whom the greatest credit belonged for pulling the many pieces of the program together and making them work." [1]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cher Scarlett

Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

• Hi Hawkeye7, review follows: article promoted to GA on 14 October; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't pick up any overly close paraphrasing from a spot check on sources I have access too (the hook is somewhat close to the source but it's a pseudo-quotation so I think important to preserve the wording); hook is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to source cited; image is fine and appropriately licensed; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Promoting the main hook, with the image, to Prep 6 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)