The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

List of Apollo missions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 18:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is complete and well-sourced. I've spent a lot of time researching this topic and I find it fascinating and I feel the information in the list reflects that. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 18:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am unable to get Dispenser's tools (on right) to load, I keep getting timeout errors. Not sure if that's a known issue or what... ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 18:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jmnbqb (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you put a lot of work in, but unfortunately there are a lot of problems. Here are my comments: In the first paragraph, the year can be added to "...safely on Earth on July 24." Done In the second paragraph, do you mean "follow-up" instead of "follow-on"? Done In the second paragraph, change the year in "1973–74" to the full year per MOS:DATERANGE Done - Another MOS page I forgot about... In the third paragraph, the comma is not needed in "...human spaceflight capability, and funded construction..." since the sentence is not a compound sentence; also in that same sentence, how did the Apollo program fund construction of the space centers? Or if it just laid the foundation for it, it can be reworded Done - Cleaned up In the fourth paragraph, several sentences explaining the launch vehicles are sentence fragments and need to be reformatted Done Pictures need alt text per MOS:ACCESS Done All tables need row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS Fixed Usually the reference column is labeled "Refs" instead of "Sources" Fixed - And I learned something new! Under "Unmanned missions", I don't understand what you mean when you say "...posthumous honorary renaming of the flight which would have been AS-204, to Apollo 1" Reworded Refs need to use cite templates instead of just a URL (such as Ref 1) Fixed Whoops, missed that one. Date styles need to be consistent; for example, AS-205 under "Cancelled missions" has a different style than most of the entries Fixed You have a main article link for "Cancelled missions" but not for other sections Not Done what other links would you think? I don't think it's required in other sections. I agree, I did a search and couldn't really find other links (except maybe the Apollo program but that would be redundant), so this comment is satisfied Your tables could use more sorting, such as the launch date under "Unmanned missions" and "Post-Apollo missions using Apollo hardware" Fixed I've addded sorting for dates. Some of your "remarks" end in periods when they aren't sentences (which is also inconsistent with your other remarks) I have updated, some are sentence fragments which do not have periods and some are sentences with periods. Your sorting with "launch date" under "Manned Apollo missions" isn't sorting properly Fixed Sorting added. Why have sorting with "crew" under "Manned Apollo missions"? It isn't sorting properly and won't sort alphabetically due to multiple people in each block Fixed - Removed the sorting, since consensus is against moving each position to its own column. It should be plural with "parentheses" in your note Fixed Some of your tables have it labeled "remarks" while others have "notes" i.e. it should be consistent Fixed Refs in tables should be centered Fixed I don't understand the section "Launch Complex utilization" Fixed - Moved the data into the table. Ref 6 has random parentheses Fixed Ref 35 should use a cite magazine template, or at least have terms properly formatted, such as Popular Mechanics being italicized Fixed More terms in the references can be wiki linked (such as Popular Mechanics) Fixed Ref 2 should have an endash per MOS:ENDASH Fixed "Reflown" is not a word, which is under "Cancelled missions" Fixed Refs in tables should be in numerical order in the same cell Fixed Some of the references are permanent dead links Fixed with archive tables. Again, good work, but it's not FL quality yet. Jmnbqb (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments. I'll make a pass and fix things shortly. ~ Matthewrbowker Comments · Changes 20:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] Fixes in progress, will fix more when I have time (I have to step away now). ~ Matthewrbowker Comments · Changes 22:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] So sorry about the delay (I had academic commitments), but all should now be fixed. Thank you for the comments! ~ Matthewrbowker Comments · Changes 03:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jmnbqb (Round 2)

• What does the N° mean in the Unmanned Missions table header? It isn't explained in the section lead
  • The whole thing stands for serial number. I am thinking of combining the mission and serial number columns, and labeling the column Mission (Serial Number), but I do not know how I would do the first missions where they are the same. Was also thinking of adding a column for launch site to break that out. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk)
    • Maybe have a key/coloring where it marks if the mission/serial number is the same? I'm personally fine with anything that's made to be as consistent as possible across all the tables in the article. Jmnbqb (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Launch Time isn't sorting correctly in the LES tests with the Little Joe II rocket table
  • Done Kees08 (Talk)
• Why are words bolded in the Manned Apollo Missions section?
  • No good reason. de-bolded. Kees08 (Talk)
• Comma isn't needed in the sentence "This flight was cancelled around the time of the Apollo 11 first landing mission, to make the launch vehicle available for the Skylab space station."
  • Done Kees08 (Talk)
• Manned Apollo missions lead needs references
• Are 5 references per entry really necessary for the Manned Apollo missions table? (WP:OVERCITE)
• Names in the Cancelled missions table need to sort by last name per WP:NAMESORT
  • Done Kees08 (Talk)
• Under Cancelled missions, a range is given for Apollo 20 while others are just given one date; is this a mistake?
  • I only found citations supporting what I left; I added one since the citations did not seem to cover it. Kees08 (Talk)
• The bibliography date is wrong
  • Woof. Done. Kees08 (Talk)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Lead is gonna need references. There are currently zero.
• Paragraphs above tables also need references (there are none in many)
• Unsort all ref & remarks cols that are currently sortable
  • Fixed
• In the first table, I would personally fix the redirects "Sa-X (Apollo)" to "Saturn I SA-X
  • Done Kees08 (Talk)
• Made this small edit for you per MOS:DASH
  • Whoops, sorry about that. I converted it to a template because it didn't render as the proper dash on my screen...
• All people need to be sorted by last name per WP:NAMESORT
  • Done Kees08 (Talk)
• Think all the ref cols can be centered
  • Fixed
• I count 7 'permanent dead links'
  • Fixed
• There's a random space between ref 34 & 35 in the Apollo 18 row
  • Fixed
• Make sure all images have alt text
  • Fixed

I know Jmnbqb probably said some of these things but I can tell he gave you a lot of stuff to work with. This definitely needs some work before it gets promoted. I would love to see this get promoted because as you have much an extensive amount of work into it. So far great job, but still needs work. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. Like I said, I had surprise academic commitments... I've begun fixing things, I have to step away (yet again sorry), so more fixes will come soon! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 05:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt

• The paragraph at the beginning of unmanned section should have a note linking to the relevant A-20x entries, and A1 should mention A-204 somehow.

Fixed

• LES tables can probably be merged

Fixed

• The current table format is very confusing. Not sure if merging everything into a single one would be benefficial

I think merging to one table would be more confusing, this isn't List of Space Shuttle missions or the like. However, I've clarified section headings.

• Missing surface EVA totals
• CM and LM needs explanatory notes
• people on multiple missions should be marked down

How do you recommend I designate that? I'm not opposed, I just don't know how.

• people who walked on the moon should be marked

Same question.

• remarks entries need far more information added

Nergaal (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker you haven't edited for a while, if there's no activity here in the next few days, I'll archive it – you can re-nominate upon your return if need be. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Oh I'm still around, for whatever reason I've been getting no notifications related to edits on this page... your ping was the first thing I'd seen in a month. I'll address the concerns above and look into why I'm not getting notified. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker well that's good news. You haven't actually contributed to Wikipedia for more than three weeks so that's why I pinged you. And Nergaal didn't actually ping you when leaving comments, we usually expect people to have their nominations watchlisted so they can respond to comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you! I should have this page watchlisted, and I actually set up notifications via IFTTT so I receive an SMS and email on changes as well. That's neither here nor there, but I will begin addressing Nergaal's comments shortly. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker a week has now passed, are you intending to address these comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Of course! I should have clarified in my last comment, I do all of my work offline using Puggle. Over the next couple days, I'll make a very large edit on the article addressing all comments. That's just me copying from offline to online. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 15:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker this nomination has somewhat stalled since you responded nine days ago, if no further activity is forthcoming, I'll close the nomination for the time being. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker On that note, I have been holding off editing because you said you have a lot of offline edits. If you get those in, I could potentially help wrap up whatever is remaining. Kees08 (Talk) 21:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Sure! I'll work on getting them merged later this evening, thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 00:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TRM noted over a month ago that this nomination would be archived if there wasn't some movement; despite several promises there are still many outstanding comments and the nominator has again not edited for several weeks. I'm going to close this nomination for now; whenever you have a chance to update the list feel free to renominate. --PresN 17:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.