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 Amkgp (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Launch of a Gemini B capsule and Manned Orbiting Laboratory mockup.

• ... that the 3 November 1966 test flight of a Gemini B spacecraft for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory project (pictured) was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice? Source: "The only space launch in the MOL program occurred on Nov. 3, 1966, when a Titan-IIIC rocket took off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station’s (CCAFS) Launch Complex 40. Atop the rocket was a MOL mockup, without the KH-10 imaging payload, and a Gemini-B capsule that was refurbished after it flew NASA’s uncrewed Gemini-2 suborbital mission in January 1965. This was the only time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight was reflown until the advent of the Space Shuttle." ([1])
  • ALT1:... that a test flight of a Gemini B spacecraft on 3 November 1996 (pictured) was the only space launch of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory project? Source: same

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Super-Duper Missile Template:Did you know nominations/Olga Yurievskaya

Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC).

• Hello Hawkeye7 I'll be undertaking a review of this nomination. I would like to start with the reference, which appeared (at least at one time) to cite reference #118 (Berger) when it is actually your #92 (NASA - "50 years ago...). Perhaps I'm just reading that wrong, so set me straight if you would. Gulbenk (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't understand what you are asking... the quoted source covers the hooks, and is the same one used in the article [92] in the Test Flight section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  The previous question had to do with a display issue, evidently originating on the nominations page since I see the same anomaly using separate computers. Whatever it is, it's not part of your original nomination, so it doesn't pertain to the quality of your submission. I have reviewed your nomination with the following findings: Recently upgraded to Good Article, long enough, well written, the first hook conforms to article text and reference, sufficiently interesting. I would go with the first hook. However, it appears that the QPQ is still open for additional discussion. We can approve this article once the QPQ situation is resolved. Gulbenk (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  Swapped the QPQ for another one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Good to go with substitute QPQ Olga Yurievskaya. Gulbenk (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 Gulbenk Should the article be using the dates as Month Day, Year per it being an American spacecraft? SL93 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As a military article, it uses military date format (WP:MILFORMAT). NASA also uses dates in this format. So all the sources do, which made it easier to write. The article dates were set to DMY back in 2014, six years before I began revising it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Perfect. Restoring tick. SL93 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I reopened this per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 1:Spaceflight. SL93 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Would this re-wording of ALT0 work?

  ALT2 ... that a 1966 test flight of a Gemini B spacecraft for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (pictured) was the first time an American space capsule intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice?

  As far as I can tell, the point of the hook is that the capsule in question had flown to space before, but as I said in the WT:DYK discussion the original wording seemed ambiguous since the "American spacecraft flew twice" wording didn't make it clear that it was only referring to that specific vessel (and the phrasing could have been misinterpreted to be referring to a spacecraft class in general). I'm not sure if ALT2 addresses my concern since coming up with a more precise wording seemed difficult, so additional ideas could be discussed here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ambiguity is completely acceptable in hooks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hello. I was asked to weigh on this one. First, congratulations on taking MOL to GA! It's an important part of American history. Second, I don't like this DYK hook at all. I'd rather see a DYK that focuses on MOL; the DYK as it is would be better suited for an article on Gemini B or OV 3-4. To that end, I propose:

  ALT3: ... that the Manned Orbiting Laboratory was the first American crewed space station project? --Neopeius (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  That wouldn't be able to use the image. A bigger problem though is that it doesn't appear in the article anywhere. We would need a source for this hook. I think it's true, as MODS dated back to 1959, and planning for Skylab did not get under way until 1962. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think the image would be fine -- it looks like a MOL launch (would have). :) You could do something like "...MOL was an early space station project that would have utilized the USAF's Titan 3 and NASA's Gemini spacecraft?" --Neopeius (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  If ALT2 were to be used the hook could be written as "... that the Manned Orbital Laboratory (test flight pictured)" or something to that effect. Personally it feels like a better option to me than the Titan/Gemini proposal since the latter would assume readers are familiar with the Titan rocket an is also a more technical hook. A third option could be a hook about how the project was promoted with non-reconnaissance objectives but was in reality a glorified spy satellite. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• The reason I thought the original would be interesting is the recent flight flight of the reusable Crew Dragon Demo-2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hi Narutolovehinata5 Hawkeye7, any progress on this? Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm still waiting for a response from the nominator regarding my comments about additional hook suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  ALT3 was rejected. Recommend proceeding with ALT2 or the approved original hook. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  ALT0 was already rejected (i.e. pulled) so that appears to be a non-starter. Although I proposed the ALT2 wording, I don't think the phrasing is unambiguous enough to work. Perhaps a different direction is needed now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Recommend going with ALT2 then. Being unambiguous is highly undesirable in DYK hooks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

From experience that's not the case. Several hooks in the past have been rejected or pulled due to concerns that they were too vague or inaccurate. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

How about

• ALT4 ... that a 1966 test flight of a Gemini B spacecraft for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (pictured) flew to La Salle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Probably too misleading; misleading hooks are usually discouraged unless they run on April Fool's Day. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  You are not a reviewer. Go away. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• It appears that new input is needed here. Requesting a new reviewer for ALT2/ALT4. Courtesy ping to previous commentors @Gulbenk, SL93, Yoninah, Neopeius, and Vincent60030: Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

One final comment: If ALT2 or a variant is to be used, it should be made clear that the MOL capsule was the first orbital American spacecraft to fly to space more than once; an X-15 rocket plane had previously flown multiple suborbital flights prior to that. Perhaps the use of "space capsule" as opposed to "spacecraft" should help things, but this is still something to keep in mind. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• ALT5 ... that the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (pictured) could have been the world's first manned space station? --evrik ^(talk) 02:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  • For a real project with a real picture, ALT5 is too iffy. Yoninah (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Recommend going with ALT2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• We've had enough discussion here and ALT2 appears to be both the nominator's choice and the best choice. Hawkeye7, please add an inline cite to this sentence in the article: This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew. and I'll approve this. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. ALT2 hook ref verified and cited inline. Rest of review per Gulbenk. ALT2 good to go, ideally with image. Yoninah (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)