Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saturn V/archive1

Saturn V

Self-nomination. In my not so humble opinion it is an excellent article and the Saturn V is one of the most important technological achievements of the 20th Century --enceladus 05:32, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Object Support ,I don't see the point of mission control quotes in the launch sequence section. Otherwise good work, but could be expanded, especially development and technology sections.GeneralPatton 06:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Some of those quotes are world-famous. Many are even included in popular songs! -Joseph (Talk) 06:41, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
    • There are three paragraphs on the development and two on the technology, while there's a dozen on the quotes. That's bloat used to create some kind of a "dramatic" effect, not particularly encyclopedic also. I’d like to see more on the development history and technology, two far more interesting topics, and topics that really give you an insight on why were the Saturn boosters so special, instead of the Armageddon style over-dramatized launch sequence.GeneralPatton 08:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -Joseph (Talk) 06:41, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
  • What does your "concur" mean? With whom or what are you agreeing? Paul August 17:49, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • My concurrance was at the base level. Therefore I am concurring with the original request. -Joseph (Talk) 03:07, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
• Support. Could use some expansion, eg 1) Lead section needs to be expanded, 2) Very little about the history and design of the Saturn V, 3) The Technology section isn't long enough - it's almost a list (eek!), 4) More could be written about the Skylab launch (barely a fleeting mention). It is getting there though. Zerbey 17:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object: The quote section is painfully long. I agree that the transcript is historical, but its presence veers the article away from its subject, Saturn V, and onto Apollo 11. The article in general seems to half desire to be "The Moon Shot Rocket" rather than the Saturn V. The bits on the rocket itself are technical, but fine, but the human interest angle of the moonshot overwhelm them. Also, it would be worth, perhaps, mentioning some of the struggle over the adoption of the rocket and the competition among designers, though I wouldn't put a premium on that. Geogre 19:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now. One request would be a distinction between the text and web references in the form of "references" and "external links." Geogre 16:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• After reading the comments here, I've changed the 'quote section' into a more encyclopedic look at the launch sequence. I feel it is still important to include this in the article, as its about a rocket, whose whole purpose was to launch. Its a bit like having an article about the internal combustion engine and not showing how its works. The quotes may have been a bit excessive. I'll also expand the history section and look at why Skylab only get a small paragraph at the end. --enceladus 21:32, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: very comprehensive article, well written and well illustrated. Welll done Enceladus. Gandalf61 11:22, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Illustrating the article isn't that hard considering that NASA seems to have taken photos of everything!--enceladus 19:56, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Only minor quibble was no mention of cost. PRIIS 19:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Some of the images have no URLs for the sources. It would be good if we had precise source infos, even for NASA images. Lupo 08:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Done--Enceladus 08:36, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Well written and pretty comprehensive, as far as I can tell. One minor point: the text switches to present tense for two sentences in the "S-IVB sequence" section. Could you fix that? Lupo 09:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Done--Enceladus 20:26, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)