Wikipedia:Peer review/Apollo 9/archive2

Apollo 9

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… Kees08 and I plan to take it to FAC soon.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto

Ive not read this yet, but I've gone through the refs, purely for formatting consistency, and have fixed most of the dashes. Could you please check refs 52 and 57 as they don't add up - you'll see what I mean. I'll go through the article tonight, all hoping. Cassianto^Talk 17:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mission Report has double-barreled page numbers like 3-4, so the next page after that is 3-5 and at some point it resets to 4-1. Happy for advice on formatting.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, so long as you've checked it and it's not a mistake. I must say, it seems quite confusing. Cassianto^Talk 21:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Lead

Low Earth Orbit: our article it titled "Low Earth orbit" (although I see they also use Low Earth Orbit). I know it's not really for here, but maybe some alignment of capitalisation could take place in that title? (I don't know if this has already been discussed, etc, but if not, it would be a good step).

Kees08 do you have an opinion on this? (also the point immediately below).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posed a question to WP:Spaceflight and will get back to you with the answer. I used to always use Low Earth Orbit pre-Wikipedia, then on Wikipedia I tended to use low Earth orbit because it seemed preferred. Short answer: not sure we have an official consensus but I will get one. Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mission background

Same point about Orbit/orbit
"endangering Kennedy's goal of humans walking on the Moon": Maybe a full name for him? As there were a plethora of them in government, some of the younger or non-American readers may need help identifying him.
"Apollo 7 did go well": "Apollo 7 went well"?
the first humans to land on the Moon": "people" would do – "humans" feels a bit forced (ditto the earlier mention of humanoid bipeds)

Crew

"in San Antonio, Texas earned": I believe you Americans favour a comma after Texas?
What are "Capcoms"?

Mission insignia

There is a HUGE amount of whitespace on my PC here (although not on my iPad) because of the {{clear}} template. I understand why you're using it, but to some people there will be this big gap You could get rid of it by losing one of either File:Apollo9 Prime Crew.jpg or File:Apollo 9 prime crew.jpg. These appear one under the other and there is too little additional in the latter to justify having both (IMO). I'll email you a screenshot so you can see

Cut the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second bite coming shortly. Interesting stuff, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of orbiting, we're up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

What is a CMP?
What (or where) is KSC?

well, they're not as popular as the fried ones ... but I digress. Taken care of in both cases.

March 3–7

In BrEng, "liftoff" is hyphenated: is it one word in the US?

Yes.

"The mission's purpose": I was a bit thrown by this sentence. I would have expected to see the purpose up in the background section

Moved further up but not as far as that.

Sources & refs

I was slightly confused by the numbering system too, but if that's the way they did it, so be it. One thing you'll have to sort is the formatting of the reports, as you have both hyphens and dashes in place

I hope I am consistent in how I use them but if I don't get a better idea on formatting, I will go through pre-FAC in this format and assure consistency anyway.

The sources from Compton (1989) and Harland (1999) are listed but unused.

I may still use them as I have one in house and the other is online. I'll delete them for FAC if need be.

That's it. An interesting read, as these space ones often are. Please ping me when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. All taken care of or at least argued about.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Coming in lower down the batting order, I find very little to comment on.

On both the computers I use there is a fairly hefty slab of white space between the "Mission insignia" and "Planning and training" sections, which I imagine is caused by the placing of the images.
It was news to me that you can put an s on the end of antenna to make the plural, but I see the OED admits it. (Still looks very odd to me, though.)
There's an even bigger slab of white space between the "Spacecraft and call signs" and "Life Support System backpack" sections.
You are inconsistent in the spelling of kilometres/kilometers

And that, I fear, is really all I can find to moan about. Tim riley talk 10:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I think I've covered everything except the gaps. I tried filling them with images but that did not work (see above).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]