Note that I am not a primary contributor, and I don't know who contributed the most. This is a good topic nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria:
1. It is a set of similar, interrelated articles or lists that cover a specific topic.
(a) There are at least three distinct articles or lists. Y there are 4
(b) The articles or lists have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope. Y they are related about the same mission to the moon
(c) All articles or lists in the topic are linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common category or super-category. Y
(d) There are no obvious gaps (missing or low-quality articles) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together. Y picked the most important, core articles for the topic (main mission article + three astronauts on the mission)
(e) For overview topics, every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic should also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic. not applicable
2. The topic has an introductory and summary lead article or list.
3. Each article or list is of high quality, including the referencing.
(b) With good topics only:
(i) All items are at least featured lists or good articles. Y 1 featured article, 3 good articles
(c) Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to th:eir limited subject matter (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criteria 1(a), 3(a)(ii), or 3(b)(i).
Meets the requisite criteria to become a good topic. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: I wanted this to be about just the visit to the moon itself, not about the mission parameters or the effects back on earth. Is that not okay? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is okay if others think it is fine. I did not nominate the topic yet because I was planning to do at least the landing site. Since the other articles I listed are directly related to the mission, they seem appropriate to include as well. Kees08 (Talk) 02:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tranquility Base would be better than the Mare Tranquillitatis article, if this goes that route. Kees08 (Talk) 07:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Kees08: that the topic needs to have a broader scope of articles. I can understand not including all of the articles about the effects of Apollo 11, but it should at least include more pages about the mission itself, such as the missing tapes, Transquility Base, and the goodwill message. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until other articles in the scope can be brought up to GA quality, as noted above. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now) per the above. Until the other Apollo 11-related articles are up to GA/FA quality, it seems inappropriate to have a seemingly comprehensive featured topic (given the name) passed that is not inclusive of the other articles.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the consensus above from four separate editors that this topic does not satisfy the criterion for completeness, I am failing this nomination.--十八 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Y there are 4
not applicable
