Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 13, 2004, April 17, 2004, April 14, 2005, April 14, 2006, April 14, 2007, April 14, 2008, April 14, 2021, April 14, 2023, and April 14, 2024.
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Now the cause of the infection is mentioned twice, and they slightly differ, because the first is more nuance. Leaving out the dehydration the second team avoids repetition and confusion Dajasj (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to leave it out as it adds an important historical descriptor of the astronaut's life within the capsule. Not clear on what you think causes confusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave it in to stress they dehydrated themselves. Which they didn't have to, they had been told there was sufficient water to drink. Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But before we write: "This infection was probably caused by the reduced water intake, but microgravity and effects of cosmic radiation might have impaired his immune system's reaction to the pathogen." Which is more nuanced than the latter description. Dajasj (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both mentions seem fine as descriptors. The microgravity and cosmic radiation seem a stretch in either case, he purposely dehydrated himself (never a wise move). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is, as a reader you have already read about the cause of the infection, with more context, shortly before. I makes sense that we mention the infection again, but why repeat the presumed cause? Dajasj (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not every reader (or most if not almost all) reads an entire article of this length. Many read sections which interest them. Besides, the mention is not disruptive but descriptive, and many things and events - even 'Apollo 13' itself - are mentioned numerous times. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is that the current lead, which is more or less in the form it passed FAC in, sticks to the essentials and avoids trivia. That Apollo 13 went the furthest from Earth had more to do with the position of the Moon than anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a vital fact to add to the article. If you don't want it in the lead, where do you think it should be noted?
The record is already noted on the page, in the section ‘Looping around the Moon’:
_
“At pericynthion, Apollo 13 set the record (per the Guinness Book of World Records), which still stands, for the highest absolute altitude attained by a crewed spacecraft: 400,171 kilometers (248,655 mi) from Earth at 7:21 pm EST, April 14 (00:21:00 UTC April 15).” Voteins (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you think that is the best place for it? Is 'highest altitude [from something unnamed]' the best way of describing 'farthest from Earth'?
I feel it's the best place for it. It wasn't a goal of the mission, it happened as the result of other things, the lead section focuses on the events of the mission and how it is remembered and that is how it should be. Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change 'was [35] years old' to 'was [36] years old'.
Under 'Astronauts and key Mission Control personnel' Fred Haisse is stated as being 35 years old (at the time of the spaceflight, April 11–17, 1970): "Fred Haise, the lunar module pilot (LMP), was 35 years old.". If he really was born on November 14, 1933 as his Wikipedia page mentions, he would have been 36 years old at that time (turning 37 later that year). 185.45.245.6 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, good catch (assuming Haise's birthyear is correct at his page). Thanks. And Lunar Module is also supposed to be uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)