Talk:Apollo program

The {{editintro}} template atop the main article page

The {{editintro}} template atop the article page should be removed prior approval. ...said Chunbum Park (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2007

It has now been removed. Milton Beychok 03:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Exploration of the Moon

Please explain why the Category "Exploration of the Moon" was removed. Charles F. Radley 09:59, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Probably because we now use work groups as our categories and there is no such work group. Milton Beychok 04:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Documenting my recent edits

This was originally a Wikipedia import created in April 2007. Although some people have edited it at various times in the past 4 years, it still contained much of the original content and formatting. I spent about 12-16 hours in CZ-ifying and improving it as documented below:

• Main article: Reformatted and updated all of the references as per the usual CZ style. Numerous small copy edits. Numerous wiki links revised, edited, expanded. Added two photos.
• Related Articles subpage: Re-formatted and added a good many related article links. Culled the bot-created links. Deleted inappropriate links.
• Bibliography subpage: Completely reformatted the existing bibliography so as to use the {{cite book}} template. Added one additional book to the bibliography subpage.
• External Links subpage: Checked each of the links on that subpage to be sure that they were all still active links.
• Metadata template: Entered language variant as AE. Revised cat check from "yes" to "no". Revised status from 4 (external import) to 2 (developing article). Added History and Engineering as "cats". Replaced Astronomy "cat" with Physics.

This article still needs a critical review by one of our knowledgeable History editors or authors. Milton Beychok 03:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Since posting the above documentation of my edits, I renamed the article from "Project Apollo" to "Apollo program" which is what NASA and most others call the Apollo missions. In addition, I have made a good many other edits. Rather than simply pointing the readers to a list of Apollo missions and a list of astronauts on those missions, I created a new section called "Apollo missions and astronauts" which includes an extensive table listing all of the Apollo missions, the astronauts involved in each mission, the date of each mission, and a brief description of each mission.

I also deleted a discussion about the "Orion" spacecraft because recent events (in the last few months) indicate that the "Orion" spacecraft program most probably will not be funded. I further made a great number of fairly minor copy edits and added/revised/deleted many Wiki links. Finally, I added another photo to the article. When I find the time, I plan to create a subpage for a gallery of Apollo program photos.

I have asked about 5 people to review this article and I am awaiting their responses. Milton Beychok 02:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent article. While I have not checked the history by comparing sources, it looks fairly accurate based on my memory. I was but a girl then when the Apollo missions were first flown. It's too bad we haven't progressed more. Mary Ash 15:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I visited the Apollo program on behalf of the British government in 1970, and was given a 10-day tour of its facilities and contractors. As far as I can tell, the article is factually accurate. But it fails to reflect some of the Apollo program's most important aspects - the unprecedented engineering and project management achievements that it involved, the meticulous attention that was given to safety (after the severe criticism of NASA in the inquiry report on the 1967 disaster), the regular rehearsals of disaster scenarios and the regular competitions for the most effective rescue responses (but for which the Apollo 13 crew would not have survived), and the global impact of the televised first moon landing. As a purely personal reaction, I am repelled by the Wikipedia-type use of a tabulation instead of a reader-friendly narrative. And as a former engineer, I regret the absence of information about the project's technological problems and their solutions. But I don't consider any of this to be grounds for withholding approval. Well done! Nick Gardner 21:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points, Nick, though I do not totally agree with you about the tabulation issue. In my experience, a well-constructed table can serve to encapsulate and at-a-glance-late a wealth of information that would task a reader to consume/digest in what would otherwise be a very dense narrative. I would argue that a good table is worth a 1,000 words.

I agree with your penultimate sentence. The topic of the Apollo program requires books. Acknowledgement, in the article, of the subtopics you mentioned is worth considering, however. Anthony.Sebastian 03:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about the merits of tables. It is just that I prefer to offer them as a linked option on the addendum subpage, for the benefit of readers who prefer that form of presentation. That frees the text on the main page for me to highlight points of interest, without hampering the flow with irrelevant detail. (It also helps to distinguish CZ from WP).. But that's only a personal preference - I wouldn't want all CZ articles to look alike. And I do not consider it necessary to repair the omissions that I have referred to in order to gain approval. Nick Gardner 10:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I should keep in mind more consciously the potential merits of more frequent use of the addendum subpage. Anthony.Sebastian 22:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the details about the spacecraft components, it might be useful to add a chronological description of all the procedures that happen since the launch. Here's a small laundry list:

• how much time it took to travel between Earth and moon
• experiments - measuring speed of light
• videos - moon and feather drop