Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... the second crewed mission to the Moon. Not as famous as its illustrious predecessor, the crew of Apollo 12 probably had more fun doing it. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Images appear to be freely licensed. There is, however, layout issues with sandwiching in "Crew and key Mission Control personnel", "Lunar surface activities", and "Mission insignia" sections, and the last image breaks the references section. Overall, the article gives the impression of having too many images, and would be improved by retaining only those which substantially increase reader understanding of the topic. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the infobox seems way too long. How many readers are actually going to look at all that detail? Can't you present the key info in a more concise format? (t · c) buidhe 20:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I've cut some of the images that seemed less necessary. Regarding the infobox, all I can say is that all of the Apollo mission articles contain that information, and 7 of the 11 crewed missions are now FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may, or may not, be persuasive re the technical detail, but does the infobox need three images. Suggest you move at least two, all three might be better, elsewhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles have a lead image, and in the case of the Apollo articles, it is generally an image that is distinctive to that mission. I've moved the other two out of the infobox, thereby shortening the same and eliminating one image from the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Universe Today seems to be a well-regarded and reliable site that has been covered and praised by sites we deem reliable, for example, Slate, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned that I can't find a editorial policy or even who is behind it. And while it MIGHT pass WP:RS, I have significant doubts about it meeting the high quality requirement for FA. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for a replacement.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
works for me. next time though, can you do me a favor and tell me what it was replaced with, so I don't have to go digging for the information?
I have a concern about how much is sourced to NASA sources, or primary sources. There is a lot of relying on NASA publications as well as things that should probably be considered primary - the various data sheets and other things of similar nature. It's something that needs to be kept as little as possible because it is entirely too easy to drift into actually writing history as historians do (i.e. from the primary sources) instead of doing encyclopedia editing from secondary sources. I know primary sources are allowed, but I remain concerned about the number used in this article.
Note that I did not do spot checks or check for formatting, etc. Just reliablity.
Note also that I will claim this review for points in the Wikicup.
Thank you for the review. I think there's two separate issues here: the primary sources from the Apollo era, which of course are NASA-generated, the true primary sources, and much later sources, such as that by the Lunar and Planetary Institute and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, that have are supported by NASA but are secondary sources. Plainly both are used. I will, over the next few days, see where I can bring down the number of cites to the earlier sources. There's really, though, no reason to doubt the accuracy of either for factual information, and we're not reporting on any opinions. It's a bit of a cleft stick: the NASA sources, earlier or later, are going to have the technical information that if collected on a private site, might raise questions of reliability. But I'll see where I can find a happy medium.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced some. I'm not sure how much more I can do. The Apollo-era ones that are left are mostly being used for technical info, biographical detail and similar. The later ones are secondary sources, and reliable and unbiased as per above. I worry also that I'm having to replace online sources with book refs. I hope this is good enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a tough balancing act. It is always hard to judge on this sort of thing ... how much to use from an agency directly vs. how much to source through third-party sources that likely get their information from the organization. But the rant about too much use of primary sources is for another time... not now (grins). Looks good, you're good to go and I'm unwatching this review. Good luck! Ealdgyth (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second clause of the sentence The use of a hybrid trajectory allowed more flexibility in mission planning, for example allowing Apollo 12 to launch in daylight and reach the planned landing spot on schedule. seems odd. A restructuring could make it more concise and flow better.
This isn't a huge deal, but the mission insignia looks a little off when positioned to the left. I realize that if you moved it to the right, you would have a near constant stream of rightside images. Moving "File:Astronaut Alan L. Bean is about to step off the ladder of the Lunar Module.jpg" to the left may help. You don't have to act on this.
I'm pretty new to the FA side of things, so take these comments with a grain of salt. ~ HAL333 21:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done those things, and thank you for the review and welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A second sweep found nothing. Happy to support. ~ HAL333 17:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Apollo Lunar Module Pilot Alan L. Bean". The upper case P - is "pilot" an actual title? As opposed to a position.
Yes, I've adjusted the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In proving that pinpoint landings could be made, they enabled future Apollo missions to sites of scientific interest, where the astronauts would have to land close by." Would it be possible to improve the flow of this?
I know. But in American English it is far more common to refer to it by the shorthand. There is a link.
I know, but for the majority of English speakers for whom that would mean nothing without a click through ... You know, I am struggling to think of a non-clunky solution. OK, leave it. But it is possible I may come back on this, if I actually think of something workable.
Any chance of a brief in line explanation of "Flight director"?
"they had to be relatively flat without major obstructions". Maybe 'they had to be relatively flat and without major obstructions'?
"the path the LM would fly". LM in full at first mention.
"Since Apollo 12 was to attempt the first landing if Apollo 11 failed". I struggled a bit to understand what you were trying to say here. Probably just me, but consider 'attempt the first Moon landing'.
Above ones done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"However, some argued for a landing ... However, given that Apollo 11 had landed" Optional: avoid "However" twice so close together.
"overruling the unanimous recommendation of two site selection boards." What was that recommendation?
On review of the source, modified to "despite the unanimous opposition of members of two site selection boards.".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"with large numbers of media members getting in the way". Would 'with the large numbers of media members getting in the way. read better? Or, perhaps, 'with many of the large number of media members getting in the way'?
Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox the spacecraft launch mass is given as 101,127 pounds. In the text it states "Of this figure, the spacecraft weighed 110,044 pounds". What am I missing?
I will research this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The figure in the infobox was that on reaching Earth orbit, so from the next line in the Mission Report table on page A-9. I've made a correction and verified that the landing weight is that which is stated.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system was fired". Should that be 'The S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system was to be fired'?
"a Launch Escape System (LES), and Spacecraft-Lunar Module Adapter 15 (SLA–15}. The Launch Escape System contained" Why give the abbreviation LES and then not use it? Especially when you do use others in the same sentence.
LES is used near the end of the paragraph. But for consistency I've changed Launch Escape System to LES.
"These were selected from several thousand proposed names". Is it known who made the selection?
The crew. New source added.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the abort system logic"? And this would be? ;-)
Beats me. But as it is mentioned, better to give the info than to fuzz it away.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am unenthusiastic about a sentence in a FAC which even the author doesn't understand!
The paragraph starting "Apollo 12's ALSEP included a Lunar Surface Magnetometer" Has a whole series of names with upper case initial letters, eg "Lunar Surface Magnetometer"; "Dust Detector" etc. Why?
NASA equipment tends to take the capital letters. If I lower cased it, it might be taken to be merely descriptive.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and the Solar Wind Spectrometer, to measure the strength and direction of the solar wind at the Moon's surface—the Solar Wind Composition Experiment, to measure what makes up the solar wind, would be deployed and then brought back to Earth by the astronauts". Is this two separate experiments, or two aspects of the same one?
"by the nearby planned impact of the ascent stage". Optional: → 'by the planned impact nearby of the ascent stage'.
"which contained a transmitter, receiver, timer, data processor, and equipment for power distribution"> Might some of these be linked?
I would think they would be relatively common terms and therefore links would be unnecessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"some NASA and military satellites had previously". Perhaps 'some uncrewed NASA and military satellites had previously'?
I'm inclined to think the reader will understand that satellites are not crewed, and that it's clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The Apollo 12 ALSEP experiments were commanded on from Earth on November 19, 1969.". Is there a typo there? Because i am struggling to even guess what is meant. OK - I think that "commanded on" and "off" is the issue. Is there a way of rephrasing this?
It's the proper terminology, but I've switched to "activated" and "deactivated".
"This termination happened principally due to budgetary reasons". Maybe 'The principal reasons for these terminations were budgetary restrictions' or similar?
Done a little differently.
"There were completely overcast rainy skies, encountering wind speeds". You can't switch tenses like that. ("There were ... encountering".)
"the highest of any Apollo mission". Optional: "highest" → 'strongest'.
You give abbreviations for a number of items which are not mentioned again. eg "Descent Propulsion System (DPS)". Why?
NASA equipment is often referred to by the shorthand, and it is my thought that it's better to give it in case the reader encounters the abbreviation elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a core tube full of lunar material". What's a core tube?
"Conrad had landed it between two of these points". What points?
I gather from the text that Surveyor 3 was in a crater. Is that correct? If so, could it be made explicit somewhere?
" Hand Tool Carrier". Upper case initials. Really?
Yes, it's a thing. Later on it was expanded and put on wheels, first on the "rickshaw" pulled by Apollo 14's astronauts and then on the lunar rover (the MET and LRV, respectively).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"plane change maneuver". Which would be? (You just know that readers are going to be thinking "airplane".)
Link spectrum.
"nmi". In full at first mention.
"The Apollo 12 landing area on the Moon is the portion of the lunar surface" → 'The Apollo 12 landing area on the Moon is within the portion of the lunar surface'.
"a photograph of a globe of the Moon in a library, taken by engineers". Is "in a library" necessary?
Bibliography: Dick - no publisher location?
Cite 89 should be 'pp.'
Cite 62 should be 'p.'
All the above done or commented on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that is it from me. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a mot thorough review. I think I've done or commented on everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few minor follow ups above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I'm just giving a drive-by support for an article I believe meets the FAC criteria. But some comments to prove I read it:
"All three of the astronauts had backed up Apollo 9 earlier in 1969" makes it sound like Bean had been on the backup before selection for Apollo 12. Suggest: " The three astronauts backed up Apollo 9 earlier in 1969"
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Analysis of Surveyor 3 material and photographs returned by Apollo 12" is a bodgie link.
That and two other ELs replaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bit surprised that my favourite book on the subject, Apollo 12 on the Ocean of Storms (2011) OCLC801098415 didn't make the references. Consider adding it to the Further reading list.
I"ve obtained a copy and used it as a reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Afterwards, the samples and photographs taken would be critiqued. — isn't "analysed" more appropriate?
I've clarified. The astronauts' choice of samples and technique in photography was being critiqued.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weighed 6,487,742 pounds (2,942,790 kg) at launch, an increase from Apollo 11's 6,477,875 pounds (2,938,315 kg). Of this figure, the spacecraft weighed 110,044 pounds (49,915 kg), up from 109,646 pounds (49,735 kg) on Apollo 11. — Why millions of lb/kg instead of tons/tonnes?
Source states it that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hand Tool Carrier—Why caps?
It is a specific piece of NASA equipment and was capped.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go over this with quite such a fine comb because you've already had several thorough reviews, but I picked up a few things while reading through:
The lead looks on the short side for 5,500-word article.
With President Richard Nixon in attendance, the first U.S. president to watch a crewed space launch Does this mean Tricky Dick had watched a previous launch, or do you mean "the first time POTUS had attended"?
Flight Director Gerald Griffin, CAPCOM Gerald Carr is a sea of blue; also Electrical, Environmental and Consumables Manager (EECOM) John Aaron
Unfortunately, when Bean carried the camera "unfortunately" is editorialising
20:58 UTC (3:58 pm EST, 10:58 am HST) You use "UT" above (and below) but this, near the end of the article, is the first time you mention and link UTC and the other time zones.
I've dealt with these. HST is used because that is local time where they splashed down; EST is used (and also is for the launch) because that is local time at KSC. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I'm not fussed what time zones you use; just be consistent in which abbreviation you use. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"...which then, after completing its 45th lunar orbit, traveled back to Earth" I would remove the 45th orbit part; it's a pretty long sentence as is. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing Pete Conrad and Dick Gordon were also Navy ROTC graduates; the commissioning source is only mentioned for Bean.
Conrad was, I don't see any reference to Gordon. I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it in all cases. This is very much a thumbnail bio, and the lack of a prior spaceflight for Bean means we're somewhat digging for detail on him.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would just remove the ROTC reference for Bean then to keep it consistent with the other astronauts. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"he became a naval aviator, completing United States Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River Naval Air Station." This makes it sound like Conrad became a naval aviator by going to TPS.
"Conrad's Lunar Module pilot" I would make it "Apollo 12's Lunar Module pilot". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Williams died before the Apollo 12 crew was assigned. I think Williams was at the time of death de facto backup LMP for Apollo 8 (which then became Apollo 9).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think listing him as "Conrad's LMP" isn't correct; I understand he would have worked under Conrad, but he would have been assigned to the mission, not the commander. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to finesse that point.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a former student of his at Patuxent River" I would change this to "a former student of his at Test Pilot School" to make it clear where he was a student. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think referring to it as "the Patuxent River school" still puts it in the territory of Navy-speak. Readers unfamiliar with Navy TPS referred to as "Pax River" may not get what school it is referring to, as it is previously referred to as "United States Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River Naval Air Station" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll do it your way.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the job description sentence for flight directors. It's a good anecdote, but I don't think it fits, as none of the other jobs having their job description quoted. The flight director page is linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've received a number of reviewer comments asking for a description of the jobs of Flight Director and CAPCOM in these Apollo articles. The language is borrowed from Apollo 13.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"some argued for a landing close enough to the crater" Who argued? NASA directors? Mission planners? It should be stated. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"five hours in mission-specific training for every hour they could expect to spend in flight on the mission" Shouldn't this be "for every hour they expected to spend"? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"even though Armstrong had been forced to bail out of a similar vehicle in 1968, just before it crashed" I would remove this; it implies that the LLTV was no longer in use following Armstrong's crash except when Conrad wanted to use it, but I'm pretty sure it was used for all lunar landings. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was. I've massaged the text to make it clear that the training continued.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The cask would be put to the test on Apollo 13, and survived re-entry to sink in the Tonga Trench" I think "would be put to the test" is wordy; maybe "On Apollo 13, the cask survived re-entry and sank in the Tonga Trench" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done in a slightly different form.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This achieved one objective of the mission, to perform a precision landing near the Surveyor craft." This comma seems unnecessary; maybe something like "This achieved the mission objective to perform a precision landing near the Surveyor craft." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing language puts more emphasis on this being one of the mission objectives--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Analysis of the images might reveal colors not visible to the naked eye or detectable with ordinary color film, and information could be obtained about the composition of sites that would not soon be visited by humans." I'm assuming they did learn about the composition through these photos? This reads like it is the hope for a future experiment. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, from the brief discussion in Harland at pp. 397 to 398, it wasn't greatly successful.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"CSM and LM docked just over three and a half hours later." Was 3.5 hours abnormally fast? If not, I would remove "just over" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, not abnormally fast. By Apollo 14, they were doing it on a single lunar orbit, half the time of 11 and 12. Modified per suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk)
"NASA had remotely fired the service module's thrusters" Since NASA is a really big organization, I would make this more specific; maybe make this "Mission control had remotely fired..." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "File:20180320 Apollo 12 Virginia Air and Space Center-2.jpg" is a better photo of the capsule (full disclosure: I took this photo), as the current photo is pretty washed out in the top right corner. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded or done those things. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few further comments that I have added in regard to additional changes, but it doesn't change the fact that I think this article is well done, and I support it passing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. I've tried to address the remaining issues.--!!!!
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.