The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Scope creep ( talk · contribs) 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I have read the article 8 times now, the spelling is good, layout is good and coverage of content, having read up on it, seems fairly comprehensive at the moment. scope_creep Talk 20:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
never-flown part. Can that re-clarified with a better description, as you have
launched on 3 November 1966at the bottom. Apart from that, it is really decent. Possibly re-craft it. It could best it is at the moment. I don't know. It sound a wee bit odd, but it might be me. "It was a never flown part"??
The launch of Sputnik 1, the first satellite, by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957, came as a profound shock to the American public, which had complacently assumed American technical superiority, and sparked a search for initiatives to counter its psychological impactIts a long sentence. Is it possible to take out one American and reorder. Give an ownership, e.g in their technical superiority, and sparked a...
most forms of human space flightI'm left wondering what was left out?
transferred $53.8 million (equivalent to $367 million in 2018)Somebody mentioned inflation template, might be worth using. I don't know what nick its in. Surprising to say the least.
including Man in Space Soonest to NASAIs there a link or a clarification?
The same 22 February memorandum tacit approval for the development of a space stationgave tacit approval
Program 287As its a name
McNamaraDoesn't seem to be linked.
"white" experimentsWhat are these? Can it be linked somehow, or clarified?
Brigadier General Russell A. BergLink this.
Done
Black Financial ProceduresCan you clarify this.
White Financial Procedures AgreementWhat exactly are these? Some clarification is needed.
black fundsLink this.
(GSE/TD)Get rid. Not used.
Douglas selected four major subcontractorsSeems to six??
Aerospace and the MOL.sitting alone, all lonely.
Aerospace and the MOL. Aerospace concurred with all but the last, noting..Got that, took 30 seconds. Can you rewrite it.
thrustersIs it worth linking thrusters. There is an article of sorts, Thrusters (spacecraft).
Hamilton StandardIs that the right company? According to the article it a manufacturer of propellers. Parts supplier. Unlike the other three, there is no mention of material design, or suit design.
mobile services TowerUppercase Tower?
segment receipt inspection building and ready buildingWhat are these? Kind of make sense, but odd sounding?
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
He directed Directorthe?
Secretary of the Air Forcecan this be linked, if not already liked.
Done
I've had a good look through this. I can't see anything that immediately stands out. I spent some time over the weekend comparing the article to the
WP:MOS, on line by line basis and think it is OK. There is nothing glaring. I think is done. Done
This is fine. Done
Hi @ Hawkeye7: This seems to be bloggish, work of one person? [1] The military documents, memo's and so on are fine.
Not a chance. Done
I found a couple of extra papers. One paper interesting, Manned Orbiting Laboratory-for War or Peace? at [3]. Another at [4] Both of seem to be outside the archive.
It is comprehensive and heavily sourced. Done
I have read six MOL type articles and they are all identical. Done
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Scope creep ( talk · contribs) 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I have read the article 8 times now, the spelling is good, layout is good and coverage of content, having read up on it, seems fairly comprehensive at the moment. scope_creep Talk 20:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
never-flown part. Can that re-clarified with a better description, as you have
launched on 3 November 1966at the bottom. Apart from that, it is really decent. Possibly re-craft it. It could best it is at the moment. I don't know. It sound a wee bit odd, but it might be me. "It was a never flown part"??
The launch of Sputnik 1, the first satellite, by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957, came as a profound shock to the American public, which had complacently assumed American technical superiority, and sparked a search for initiatives to counter its psychological impactIts a long sentence. Is it possible to take out one American and reorder. Give an ownership, e.g in their technical superiority, and sparked a...
most forms of human space flightI'm left wondering what was left out?
transferred $53.8 million (equivalent to $367 million in 2018)Somebody mentioned inflation template, might be worth using. I don't know what nick its in. Surprising to say the least.
including Man in Space Soonest to NASAIs there a link or a clarification?
The same 22 February memorandum tacit approval for the development of a space stationgave tacit approval
Program 287As its a name
McNamaraDoesn't seem to be linked.
"white" experimentsWhat are these? Can it be linked somehow, or clarified?
Brigadier General Russell A. BergLink this.
Done
Black Financial ProceduresCan you clarify this.
White Financial Procedures AgreementWhat exactly are these? Some clarification is needed.
black fundsLink this.
(GSE/TD)Get rid. Not used.
Douglas selected four major subcontractorsSeems to six??
Aerospace and the MOL.sitting alone, all lonely.
Aerospace and the MOL. Aerospace concurred with all but the last, noting..Got that, took 30 seconds. Can you rewrite it.
thrustersIs it worth linking thrusters. There is an article of sorts, Thrusters (spacecraft).
Hamilton StandardIs that the right company? According to the article it a manufacturer of propellers. Parts supplier. Unlike the other three, there is no mention of material design, or suit design.
mobile services TowerUppercase Tower?
segment receipt inspection building and ready buildingWhat are these? Kind of make sense, but odd sounding?
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
He directed Directorthe?
Secretary of the Air Forcecan this be linked, if not already liked.
Done
I've had a good look through this. I can't see anything that immediately stands out. I spent some time over the weekend comparing the article to the
WP:MOS, on line by line basis and think it is OK. There is nothing glaring. I think is done. Done
This is fine. Done
Hi @ Hawkeye7: This seems to be bloggish, work of one person? [1] The military documents, memo's and so on are fine.
Not a chance. Done
I found a couple of extra papers. One paper interesting, Manned Orbiting Laboratory-for War or Peace? at [3]. Another at [4] Both of seem to be outside the archive.
It is comprehensive and heavily sourced. Done
I have read six MOL type articles and they are all identical. Done