Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Apollo 13/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Apollo 13

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I and other editors would like to get it to FAC in advance of the 50th anniversary next year. Opinions on how the sections should be ordered, for example whether the material on the training on Earth for the lunar landing which did not take place should be prior to or following the material on the flight would be welcome as the matter is in some controversy has caused some discussion among the editors working on the article.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think controversy is too strong a word. It's something I thought we should discuss at some point. EEng 06:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Modified by striking through language above and adding in bold.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're taking this too seriously. EEng 07:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

Just booking myself a place. I'll gladly review the article – probably tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 13:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'll hold fire for now, what with the impressive contributions below. Tim riley talk 18:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: I think the other comment sections have died down in activity in case you find time to review this. Kees08 (Talk) 06:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

edit

The following are just a list of opinions.

  • Astronauts and key Mission Control personnel:
    • The section talks about how the Apollo 7 crew were rotated to become the backup of Apollo 10, and then the prime crew of Apollo 13. I would also describe how that of Apollo 8 became the backup of Apollo 11 (with Lovell, Haise, Anders and Mattingly).
I had glossed that over a bit due to the complexity of the explanation (Anders as backup CMP but Mattingly training alongside as Anders was leaving NASA in August 1969 and the mission might have been postponed). I could go either way on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shepard had not been grounded since 1961, he had been grounded since 1964. His last spaceflight was in 1961. That it was only 15 minutes long may have contributed to the perception that he needed more training time.
I've changed that to note he had not flown since 1961.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect to Mattingly and rubella, I would add that, in the event, Mattingly did not come down with rubella.
Added. If the "Aftermath" section is liked, it could be moved there.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We still have the issue of the uncertainty of the support crew membership.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not in love with what I did to the article to address this, but not sure what else to do. Kees08 (Talk) 22:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launch vehicle and spacecraft
    • "the rocket was 25,600 pounds" Suggest weighed 25,600 pounds
I think it is OK with "was".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overcome by events, removed that part of the sentence. Kees08 (Talk) 00:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should mention where the names Aquarius and Odessey came from (WP:NOBOOMERS)
I'm rather torn. I see the logic in moving it to later, but we want to have some consistency with the other Apollo articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems less chronological this way, what is the logic behind having it towards the end? I could be persuaded to have other Apollo mission articles reorganized. Kees08 (Talk) 06:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launch vehicle and spacecraft:
    • Link S-IC. (It should be a Roman I instead of a 1.) I would suggest "S-IC stage's engines" to avoid confusion. The engines were Rocketdyne F-1s
    • "rated at 100,000 pounds (45,000 kg) less total thrust" The conversion is wrong here. These are pounds force, and the conversion should be to newtons. Yet another reason for using metric.
    • The metric measurements should be given first. Use |order=flip in the convert template. (WP:METRIC)
      • Presumably you are saying because of In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary, e.g. 97 pounds (44 kg)., so calling it a scientific article? When I think of Apollo, or do rocket engine design work in real life, I use US customary units. I do not feel super strong about it, but it feels odd to list American rockets in kilograms. Kees08 (Talk) 03:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Definitely a scientific article, metric first; it's cases like this that flip was invented for. Beware false overprecision in the converted values. EEng 06:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest moving the paragraph on Fra Mauro down to the Experiments and scientific objectives
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I felt we needed to explain the accident separately from the section on the flight, but if we don't direct the reader to where it is, they may be somewhat lost.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did that. Moved the fate of the CM/Lovell's stuff into the new Aftermath section.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission notes
    • This seems to be a trivia section. Suggest breaking it up and moving its paragraphs elsewhere
I've renamed it "Aftermath" which I think will work if we move the record distance from Earth bit into the flight section, and replace the detail on the ALSEP with other matter. For example, that Haise was the CAPCOM during the descent. Possibly a few words on why the astronauts did not fly again would be good. I don't think a device by device comparison between ALSEP components aids the general reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission insignia and call signs
  • See Also
    • Delete this section
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

In excellent shape overall. The following are a mix of nit-picky points and some suggestions from a non-technical individual. Your call on which to adopt or not.

General
  • There are a few abbreviation that are defined in the lead, but not in the body and some that are defined in both. The following are in the lead:
    • "Kennedy Space Center (KSC)". KSC doesn't appear again in the lead. KSC appears in Launch vehicle, but is then defined again as "Kennedy Space Center (KSC)" in Training and preparation section
    • "service module (SM)". SM appears in Launch vehicle and spacecraft without being defined after the lead
    • "lunar module pilot (LMP)". LMP doesn't appear again in the lead
    • "Command module (CM)". CM appears in Launch vehicle and spacecraft without being defined after the lead
    • "lunar module (LM)". LM appears in Launch vehicle and spacecraft without being defined after the lead
Astronauts and key Mission Control personnel
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Launch vehicle and spacecraft
It is about 6.4 million pounds but the source doesn't give the exact figure. The source is, in part, a statement by a NASA official at a press conference, and the exact weight is asked for by a report, who is promised he will be given the figure later. Possibly we can do without it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page 284 Kees08 (Talk) 16:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added Kees08 (Talk) 16:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt In an effort to trim detail, does it matter that it weighed more than Apollo 12? If anything we should comment on its weight relative to all the same mission types, but that is probably overkill. Kees08 (Talk) 17:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it's too much detail, then it's too much detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got that taken care of. Kees08 (Talk) 00:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the end of Launch vehicle – more to come. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experiments
I can live with it as is. I'm sure that there's more to be said about it but given that they were not used in the manner planned, we should probably stick to essentials.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looping
  • "checked the math": please can they check the calculations instead – "math", (without the s on the end that much of the word uses) really does jar!
Changed to "figures".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reentry
Sources
I think I cut back on the pogo discussion when working on the article, and probably that caused it. We can either use it for something or else put it in Further Reading.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either New York or New York, NY would be fine in my opinion and I don't think if you use US state names you have to use British counties etc. They aren't parallels.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Nicely organised – the "Several experiments were completed..." para is the only thing that is slightly out of kilter, but I'm not sure where else it could or should go – and there is nothing that I could think of as obviously missing (that is from someone who hasn't read deeply into the subject, so there may be something, I just don't know what it could be). Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for clarification on a couple points; let me know if any other changes did not address your comments sufficiently. Kees08 (Talk) 17:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit

Some random thoughts from me rather than a proper review.

  • It seems (quite a bit) too long at over 8,000 words. If it were at FAC I would have criteria 4 concerns. For example (not exhaustive):
  • "The show also featured a "guest" astronaut each night: a member of the public who suited up and amongst other duties, stirred the oxygen tanks and said the line "Houston, we've had a problem." This "replacement" astronaut was a nod to Swigert, who replaced Mattingly shortly before launch. The production toured to other cities extensively in New Zealand and Australia in 2010–2011. The production traveled to the US and performed 45 shows in 2012."
  • "...who based it on a mural he had painted for The St. Regis Hotel in New York City ... and was on the wall of a restaurant near Chicago owned by Lovell's son. After the restaurant closed down..."
  • IMO most of the paragraphs of "Aftermath" need summarising.
I'm looking through for things to cut. Given the length of other Apollo mission FAs, I think this will probably be a bit longer than say, Apollo 15, because there are extra things to cover and I think we have to cover the spaceflight in some detail (including with an eye to the film).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I may have views on the lengths of the others,   ; I am coming to this fresh. But, for example, specifying that a mural was once on a wall(!) of somewhere where it isn't any more doesn't pass my "without going into unnecessary detail"; others may differ. I don't think that you will need to look far to find uncontentious things to cut. Trying to find an example to give you from a different section the first paragraph yielded "Because of the aborted landing, this experiment was never deployed." I suspect that if a reader needs to be informed of this then they have not been paying attention. I would go quite a bit further with this paragraph, but, again, others' views may differ. Or "Apollo 13's unique free return trajectory caused it to go approximately 100 km (60 mi) further from the lunar far side than other Apollo lunar missions, but this was a minor contribution to the record." If it was minor, why mention it? Etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading it Gog. Most experiments that were not deployed by Apollo 13 were deployed by subsequent Apollo missions, but this one never was, so it represents a permanent loss. I would recommend deleting "Because of the aborted landing". Similarly, that we should drop "but this was a minor contribution to the record", which doesn't contribute anything to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three things I expanded because they were incomplete; the painting, the play, and the distance record. We can trim them down some, but at least the information from beginning to end is there to start with. Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up good points overall and I thank you for that. With respect to the free return trajectory point though, it is often cited as the reason that Apollo 13 is the mission that went furthest from Earth, when in reality it was the position of the Earth and Moon. I could add something to that effect in the article to make it more clear, but that would be counterproductive to your goal here :). Kees08 (Talk) 06:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read through it as far as the splashdown and deleted a few sentences, but I still feel the length is due to there being a lot to cover. I'll keep working.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the article currently is, with the training on Earth for the lunar landing which did not take place covered prior to the material on the flight, seems best. Linking this training in with the other training makes things easier on the reader; it follows the actual chronological flow of events, and I see no reason why one would not wish to do that; and having to jump back to the training which took place earlier after reading about the mission would probably tie a reader's brain in a knot - it would mine anyway, but I am easily confused.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: While I admittedly did not work much on these points, Wehwalt put a lot of effort into addressing them, would you have time to take a second look? Kees08 (Talk) 06:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08 and Wehwalt: Hi guys. As this is PR and not FAC, I understand my role to be to flag up potential concerns; there is no necessary need for you to address them, or for me to sign off on the changes if you do. However, for what it's worth, I still find the article a little on the lengthy side. But I do take Wehwalt's point that "the length is due to there being a lot to cover." One could readily see it as a thorough and detailed article (which it is). Criteria 4-wise it is pushing the boundary, in my eye, but, mostly, not actually over it. A couple of things stand out to me as being over the line into trivia, YMMV, are the last paragraph on the theatrical show; and the mention of the mural, itself only tangentially related to the article, being at a location which has since closed and from where it has since been moved. This last in particular gives me the "feel" that no one has done that self-critical post-creation edit to tighten the language and the article up. I am probably wrong, but that is how it comes across. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the New Zealand stage show and pruned back the mural and the joke invoice, which I felt was vulnerable to similar criticisms. Thank you for your frank review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs

edit

I like to start from the bottom and go up since I focus on referencing. Ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/926101497

To be continued. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I think I fixed the rest of the page numbers. Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I will see if I can take some time to offer more comments from the body in the next few days. I am not sure how peer reviews work but if this closes before I can comment again, I will see you all at the FAC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we get to close it whenever we want? Kees08 (Talk) 06:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note to self to say something about what happened to the astronauts afterwards, to move a slimmed down version of the record distance from Earth into the appropriate place in the Flight section, and to move more info about the SIV-B crash up to the first time we mention what they did with it. Also that Haise was descent and EVA-2 (Cone crater) CAPCOM for 14. I'm busy with travel and my quarterly duties as a TFA coordinator so not a huge amount of time now.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I generally like the summary you have for the record distance, but could we still include that the distance was primarily due to the distance between the Moon and Earth at that time, and did not really have to do with the gravity assist maneuver? It is a common misconception that probably at least deserves a footnote. Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote is fine. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, looks great. I had brought it up to some coworkers, including an astrodynamicist, and none of them knew, so I believe it is a very common misconception. Is there anything else from your list here that needs work? Kees08 (Talk) 17:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm done on that. What remains that needs to be done overall?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: There is one point at the end of Schrocat's comments that I could use help on (in sources). Could use your feedback on drink bags. Do we want the mission insignia and call signs section to move? We need to flip metric units in front. Think that might be it so far. Kees08 (Talk) 06:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done those things, excepting one use of "convert" in the "Accident" subsection that converts to two other styles of measurement and that I wasn't sure what to do with. I've paid attention to not bringing in false precision.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing I can think of is the pogo in the rocket engine. I would prefer some mention of it to remain in the article, but won't raise a stink if we decide to get rid of it. If we keep pogo out of the article we need to remove the reference that was referring to it. Kees08 (Talk) 18:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep it. It's probably the most significant difficulty prior to the accident.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in the process, the Larson link is no longer used. I think it should be restored. I personally think the incident was important: It was estimated in the post-flight investigation that only one more cycle of amplitude growth could have been sustained without catastrophic structural failure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I reintroduced all the text, made it a separate paragraph, and trimmed it as hard as I could while still giving background on the problem, the possible solution, and the almost-catastrophic failure. Let me know your thoughts. Kees08 (Talk) 17:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Geni

edit
  • The sentence "The flight passed the far side of the Moon at an altitude of 254 kilometers (137 nautical miles) above the lunar surface, and 400,171 km (248,655 mi) from Earth, a spaceflight record marking the farthest humans have traveled from Earth." is sandwiched between two sentences about events after the mission.

©Geni (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was weird there. I could not find a good home for it in the intro, and in my opinion is fine to leave in the body of the article for the reader to find later. The intro reads better without it in my opinion but open to other opinions. Kees08 (Talk) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Apollo_13/archive1&oldid=928312041"