I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated this for FA status a couple months ago. I wasn't a major contributor then, I am now.
Boundarylayer is also interested; we want to get it to FA status.
STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to
Template:FAC peer review sidebar. I will do that next, but it would be grand if folks would remember to do it themselves. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
17:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
No problem ... no one seems to be aware of the FAC sidebar template, so I spread the message as much as I can. I will weigh in to review when I find time,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
21:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comments by Z1720
Hi, not sure who to ping so I will just leave this as general comments. I am not an expert in military history, so consider this a non-expert review. I will look at this as if it was an FAC. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Lede
"The project was never carried out, being cancelled primarily out of a fear of a negative public reaction, with the potential militarization of space that it would also have signified, and because a Moon landing would undoubtedly be a more popular achievement in the eyes of the American and international public alike." This run-on sentence should be divided.
"The project documents remained secret for nearly 45 years, and despite Reiffel's revelations" If Reiffel revealed the project in 2000, the documents would only be secret for 20 years? I feel like something is missing in this explanation.
"January 1959, seemingly out of fear of negative public reaction" Why seemingly? Do sources state why the project was cancelled, or is it speculation?
I couldn't find anything in the sources about that, so I've replaced it with the reasons in the sources. The sources say Reiffel said this, and that the USAF declined to comment, so yes, this is likely speculation, as is the case with many black projects. Thanoscar21talk,
contribs00:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't think "Evidence of the Soviet project" should be part of the "Project" section, as it was not part of A119. Rather, it should probably get its own section.
I am confused why this section is there. Is this trying to analyse what would have happened if the project continued? What the research in A119 discovered? Something else?
So are these non-nuclear crashes part of the project, or are they a consequence of the project, or something else? It feels like it is in the wrong spot.
Z1720 (
talk)
19:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)reply
A119 wasn't supposed to just scare people, it was also supposed to provide info about the lunar surface. With LCROSS, readers can find out about what did happen when something crashed into the moon. Would it be better for it to be condensed into a see also section? Thanks, Thanoscar21talk,
contribs17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)reply
It needs to be explicitly clear why this section is in the article, and how it relates to A119. Make the connects to A119 explicit and remove any unnecessary prose.
Z1720 (
talk)
17:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I am concerned about the lack of references in this article. Are you sure you have used all available resources? Google Scholar, archive.org,
WP:LIBRARY, and your local library are excellent places to find sources.
Thanoscar21 It's been another month and there still haven't been any comments. Sometimes opening a new PR can generate more interest. I also suggest consulting
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review and contacting the MiltHist coordinators: since this article was promoted to A-class in 2011, they might be able to arrange a re-review of its status (which will generate feedback on how to improve and get this to FA status.) Can we close this PR?
Z1720 (
talk)
20:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)reply
I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated this for FA status a couple months ago. I wasn't a major contributor then, I am now.
Boundarylayer is also interested; we want to get it to FA status.
STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to
Template:FAC peer review sidebar. I will do that next, but it would be grand if folks would remember to do it themselves. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
17:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
No problem ... no one seems to be aware of the FAC sidebar template, so I spread the message as much as I can. I will weigh in to review when I find time,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
21:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comments by Z1720
Hi, not sure who to ping so I will just leave this as general comments. I am not an expert in military history, so consider this a non-expert review. I will look at this as if it was an FAC. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Lede
"The project was never carried out, being cancelled primarily out of a fear of a negative public reaction, with the potential militarization of space that it would also have signified, and because a Moon landing would undoubtedly be a more popular achievement in the eyes of the American and international public alike." This run-on sentence should be divided.
"The project documents remained secret for nearly 45 years, and despite Reiffel's revelations" If Reiffel revealed the project in 2000, the documents would only be secret for 20 years? I feel like something is missing in this explanation.
"January 1959, seemingly out of fear of negative public reaction" Why seemingly? Do sources state why the project was cancelled, or is it speculation?
I couldn't find anything in the sources about that, so I've replaced it with the reasons in the sources. The sources say Reiffel said this, and that the USAF declined to comment, so yes, this is likely speculation, as is the case with many black projects. Thanoscar21talk,
contribs00:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't think "Evidence of the Soviet project" should be part of the "Project" section, as it was not part of A119. Rather, it should probably get its own section.
I am confused why this section is there. Is this trying to analyse what would have happened if the project continued? What the research in A119 discovered? Something else?
So are these non-nuclear crashes part of the project, or are they a consequence of the project, or something else? It feels like it is in the wrong spot.
Z1720 (
talk)
19:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)reply
A119 wasn't supposed to just scare people, it was also supposed to provide info about the lunar surface. With LCROSS, readers can find out about what did happen when something crashed into the moon. Would it be better for it to be condensed into a see also section? Thanks, Thanoscar21talk,
contribs17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)reply
It needs to be explicitly clear why this section is in the article, and how it relates to A119. Make the connects to A119 explicit and remove any unnecessary prose.
Z1720 (
talk)
17:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I am concerned about the lack of references in this article. Are you sure you have used all available resources? Google Scholar, archive.org,
WP:LIBRARY, and your local library are excellent places to find sources.
Thanoscar21 It's been another month and there still haven't been any comments. Sometimes opening a new PR can generate more interest. I also suggest consulting
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review and contacting the MiltHist coordinators: since this article was promoted to A-class in 2011, they might be able to arrange a re-review of its status (which will generate feedback on how to improve and get this to FA status.) Can we close this PR?
Z1720 (
talk)
20:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)reply