This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
It's misleading to say the Titan was not yet totally reliable, in that nothing is ever without any possibility of failure. It would be more accurate to say "the Air Force had yet to meet reliability standards for the Titan II as an ICBM, let alone as a manned launch vehicle." Or something to that effect. However, I'm uncomfortable putting that in the article without knowing what the reliability standards actually were. Khakiandmauve (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per request via WP:DISCORD, I did a B-class review of this article, which I suppose mainly serves as a peer review and copy-edit. I made some minor changes to the article, many of which may not be major improvements, so feel free to tinker further on those if you feel the need. The article meets B-class criteria as-is, but I do still have a few comments about the article to improve it further:
I think the lead section could be extended, giving more information about the delays due to project management and negative testing results.
Good point. Modified.
What exactly is an instrument pallet? The term isn't familiar to me.
It's not a term of art, and I've fixed the language to be more clear ("two pallets of instruments")
Why was ensured that Gemini 1 was destroyed during re-entry? I mean, I know, but a reader unfamiliar with the politics of 1964 may not be.
It's not stated in On the Shoulders of Titans, my primary reference (there are not a lot out there!) That said, I don't think the reason was political beyond the policy that it's bad manners to send a burning cannonball down on some random country's head! :)
Should Cape Canaveral be referred to as Cape Kennedy in this article?
Ah, now I feel silly not even considering that shooting a rocket in the air that you can't control and just letting it hit whatever it hits is probably not a good idea in general. I'm just so used to relatively guided landings now :p – Thanks for all the work. The article looks good! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
