Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 8

Apollo 8

This is a self-nom, that has been through peer review. Basically I think this a comprehensive look at one of the most important spaceflights ever undertaken. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral - I'd like to see the images right-justified and made larger, the article is quite long so there is no reason not to make them bigger, like 225-240px for the vertical images, and 300px for the horizontal images. Apart from that, great article and will support as soon as that's done. Páll 02:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. Though I have had some comments from IE users that if images overlap they end up with large white spaces. Doesn't affect me in Firefox though. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay they have been moved. I'm not to worried about alignment - this is more a personal preference issue as to the placement of images. I don't see the white spaces so it doesn't bother me. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I attempted to clean up the images myself after you re-sized them. I placed all the images at the start of each section so that they won't overlap. I think it looks much better this way! Now support Páll 04:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object I don't think my Peer Review comments have been adressed. The lead is too short and few more ilinks wouldn't hurt. Better mow. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe these issues have been addressed--Intro is longer than when this comment was made, and the article has many more internal links since then, as well. Niteowlneils 20:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support Comment. Seems quite detailed and well illustrated and referenced. I have issues with all distances/weights/speeds (with one exception) given only in metric units in a decidely US topic, as well as the occasional British English ("manoeuvre" and, oh, I can't find it now, but there's an "-ised" instead of "-ized"). Early on it mentions limiting the lunar orbit to 10 hours, but later says it lasted 20--the discrepancy should be explained or corrected or something. Some initialisms aren't explained at all (eg TLI, IVB, LTA, and I think one other I can't find now--maybe RCS), and others are only indirectly defined after their first appearance (eg LM, CSM, VAB)--similar issues with no definition of "capcom", especially since three different individuals are described that way. The article mentions a desire to measure radiation exposure, but I don't see results of the measurements. The Crew section lists a 'support crew', but the article doesn't discuss their role in the mission. I don't have a problem with the intro length, but if you want to expand it, I think a brief summary of how the mission's goals evolved would be useful. One final nit--was the 'thank you' telegram from some average citizen, or someone or something notable?Niteowlneils 20:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those specific issues. My source for a lot of the information was The Apollo 8 Flight Journal which uses metric units for all of its comments. I've gone through and changed them all to mi, ft/s etc then in parantheses have the metric conversion. I tried to use American spelling but some mistakes may have got through. The issue with 20 versus 10 is me getting confused with orbits and hours. It is definitely ten orbits taking twenty hours. As for the telegram, I don't know. It is mentioned a couple of times in passing in literature and was on From the Earth to the Moon (HBO) where they give the person a name. My guess is just an ordinary person. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:31, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess since I added a section, it's now a partial self-nom. All my previous issues have been addressed, and then some. Definately support altho' I have two more nits/suggestions: A picture or diagram or two of the control panel or cockpit (something more specific and easier to make out than the only current interior pic), or a cutaway of the CSM, like on p50 of Zimmerman's book, would add a lot, assuming they are available. It seems like the first paragraph of the 'Planning' section and/or the prose added to the 'Backup crew' section need to be clarified a bit, as they currently seem a bit contradictory. Niteowlneils 05:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean this pic - Image:Apollo-linedrawing.png? :-) . I removed the bit about the Apollo 13 backup crew - they were the only one that was really notable as it happened about three days before the launch. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:49, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • That looks like the one. Niteowlneils 04:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • FWIW, I've now made it thru the Zimmerman book on the flight, cover-to-cover, and believe nothing else is missing, unless you want to get into trivia like how many children each astronaut had. Niteowlneils 14:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ancheta Wis 12:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This excelent article has waited for too long... you got my support, Evil Monkey :) -- Shauri 13:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article is a pleasure to read as well as being informative and credible. --Theo (Talk) 21:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Really nicely done, and seems comprehensive. The graphics are exceptional for the typical FA candidate. Vaoverland 01:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Certainly support. I've just gone to poke the article and add a couple more details; this is an excellent piece of work! Congratulations to Evil Monkey et. al. Shimgray 20:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)