Toolbox
Copying check Manual of Style

I've listed this article for peer review because it would be nice to have other people look at on the article. This article isn't GA quality just yet, but can get there with a little bit of work. I'm listing it here to have other people look at it. I'm looking for a general review of the article.

Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 03:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first peer review, so I might not catch everything an experienced reviewer would, but I'll do my best. I tend to make edits by section, so I will start with a couple and add a section or two at a time.

Lead

• The first sentence of the lead is a bit long and jargon-filled. Is it possible to move some of the linked adjectives to a different sentence?

 Done

History

• The fourth paragraph under "Saturn development" in the history section uses a lot of "woulds". Normal past tense should work just fine here.

N I disagree, that wording is correct as it's not talking about something that happened, it's taking about something that was planned only.

• The last sentence of the fifth paragraph of the aforementioned section is a bit awkwardly worded. Maybe something like "These designs, however, gave NASA a basis on which to determine its best method for landing a man on the Moon"?

 Done

• The final paragraph of that section mentions controversy about the lunar module choice, but doesn't explain what that controversy is. If adding it wouldn't add too much irrelevant detail, an explanation would be good.

 Done

• As the second sentence of paragraph #2 of the "Selection for the Apollo lunar landing" section represents a reversal in opinion, an introductory word like "however" would be useful in this context.

 Done Added "Despite this"

Description

• The first time S-IVB is mentioned is when it is being compared to a different craft; a bit of context should be added so it's clear S-IVB is a part of Saturn V.

? I don't get it.

@The4lines: Looking back, I don't get it either. I think I missed something when I read through, looks fine to me now. Perfect4th (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Paragraphs 4-6 at the beginning of the description all start with "The Saturn V". Changing the wording for one or two of those would help readability.

 Done changed wording for some.

• Are the italics necessary? I think the paragraphs that contain them (#6 before the subsections, "S-IC first stage", "S-II second stage" #2, "S-IVB third stage") would be fine without them.

? I don't see any.

The4lines, the terms "mass" and "volume" are italicized a few times in that section, I think to emphasize that they're being compared with each other. Looks like the MOS suggests using <em></em> tags instead of two single quotes for emphasis, though I think the italics could also be removed as well. Perfect4th (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfect4th: I see, there wasn’t much context when you said “Are the italics necessary.” I get it now, thanks. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 04:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Removed italics. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 15:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is probably just me, but I'm not sure what "downrange" in the "S-IC first stage" section means.

 Done linked to article.

• This might also be my mistake, but I couldn't find what Cape the last sentence of the "S-II second stage" section was referring to in the article.

 Done, added name.

Assembly

• In the second paragraph, it mentions "The third stage and Instrument Unit could be carried by the Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy and Super Guppy, but could also have been carried by barge if warranted." Which method was used?

 Done, changed wording

• The fourth paragraph includes two acronyms that are not referenced in the article after they are defined, so they might be good candidates for removal so the prose doesn't look too cluttered with parentheses.

 Done, removed.

Cost

(I'm trying to go mostly chronologically in the article, so I'll come back to this one.)

• This section feels a little out of place; "Post-Apollo proposal" would transition smoother into "Proposed successors". Perhaps it could go either directly after "Assembly" or after "Skylab sequence" in the "Lunar mission launch sequence" section?

 Done Moved.

• "NASA received its biggest budget of $4.5 billion" – I'm not sure of what the biggest budget is; I assume it's out of all those received for the project?

 Fixed changed wording.

Lunar mission launch sequence

• In the "Startup sequence" section, it mentions "tapered metal pins [were] pulled through dies". What are the dies referenced?

Changed Dies with holes.

• I might have missed it, but does the reference in the "Max Q" section for the sentences describing the reasons for acceleration increase (paragraph #2) include the importance of the factors?

Removed paragraph, could not find a source for it.

Post-Apollo proposal

• The second paragraph includes likely changes – was there any reason why those things were likely to have been changed?

 Not done Doesn't say.

• In the fourth paragraph, possible uses are listed of the Saturn V had production not stopped. There should probably either be a citation stating those changes would have helped, or else the instances should be changed to "could".

 Done Changed would to could

Saturn V displays

• I think the list would work better composed of full sentences: "There are two Saturn V displays at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville:", etc.

 Done

Final comments

That's all for things I ran into. I don't have any experience reviewing GAs, but I did check it against the criteria and I think it looks fairly good. I hope I've covered what you're looking for. I must confess that I was not expecting to find this article as interesting as I did, but it was quite a good read – the "Discarded Stages" section was especially fascinating. Best of luck with future improvements and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfect4th: Thanks for the review! Any little bit helps :)! Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 01:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]