1533:"There is one part of the film thatâs not based in fact, but informed conjectureâthe moment Armstrong drops his daughter Karenâs bracelet into the Little West Crater on the surface of the moon. In the real-life sequence of events on the moon, Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin went through a carefully choreographed series of movements, save for a brief moment when Armstrong went off script to stand at the edge of the crater. Hansen, after spending years with the Armstrongs, speculated that, perhaps at this moment, the astronaut had left something of Karenâs behind.: See:
74:
53:
1556:
to the crater he had seen before landing, to explore it. He took pictures of it, and of the lunar module from that vantage point, then returned to the lunar module to finish his moonwalk. It would have been time consuming to retrieve a personal item from the pocket on his lower leg, which was, in any case, occupied by the contingency sample, and he didn't have time for such an awkward retrieval under the strict timeline, especially since
Mission Control had told the crew to complete their surface activities.
658:
236:
555:
528:
916:"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
2161:
565:
444:
2169:
423:
829:. However, the "Critical reception" section is currently imbalanced. Metacritic shows out of 56 reviews, 54 are positive and two are mixed. Essentially, there is too much coverage devoted to non-positive reviews. I would suggest cutting it down. I think it would be fine to keep Brody's review despite such a culling since I recall seeing high-level sources mention it as part of the coverage. But we don't need the others, I think. Pinging
295:
264:
166:
142:
1178:. Note that I did not post either of these reviews, so clearly there is precedent for this that has nothing to do with me. As to the notion that I provided no good reason for its inclusion, I will simply state again: it is a significant critical review by a noted film critic, one who appears on Knowledge multiple times, who has his own page here, and which was written for a magazine (
391:
367:
454:
670:
176:
707:
plot description.) If it is the former, then it is appropriate to describe the characters in context of all their space program accomplishments (e.g. Lovell commanded Apollo 13, and Kranz was Flight
Director for Apollo 13). If it's the latter, then I think it is not appropriate to include details of anything that happened outside of the scope of the film (or at least not to
22:
1298:. The other statements regarding absence of the a flag planing scene derived from this Marco Rubio's original statement. I also think Political stance section to be unnecessary and trivial given the modern political climate. Positions and views held by couple of journalists reviewing the film have not led to an actual wide-spread controversy about the film.
305:
1715:. I think there are two distinct kinds of coverage -- that about the real-life person, and that about Foy's portrayal of her. The latter is more appropriate to cover here. Saying that the film has led to more focus on the real-life Janet needs a better and high-level source, and I think that can be conveyed in a sentence or two if a source is found.
1575:"Dirty, rusty... This is obviously an editor's synthesis. He appears to be guessing that since the spacecraft were single use, and had never been used in space, they should appear new. In reality the vehicles were wrung through the wringer before the missions. Tested, and run through simulations for months. They did get some wear, and dirt.
1659:
it attracted attention, nothing noteworthy or interesting besides her death. I personally, after seeing the film, also looked for an article about her on
Knowledge (or at least a decent amount of information in the Neil Armstrong article) but was surprised that it didn't exist, especially considering
1952:
I appreciate your direct comments, and I understand your opinion, I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Even if you find it unnecessary the documentation says to list both. Variety said "production budget was around $ 70 million, but when tax incentives were taken out, the cost of the film was
1692:
A biography of Janet
Armstrong would be inappropriate here, because the article is about the film (and reactions to it). There is scope to expand the sub-section slightly, which would be a positive solution. But if an editor thinks there isn't even enough sources to sustain a one line sub-section, I
1555:
There is nothing in the book about
Armstrong dropping personal items on the moon. Nor have I ever seen it mentioned anywhere in the many detailed and authoritative accounts I have read of the mission. Near the end of his moonwalk, Armstrong opportunistically (on the spur of the moment) ran 60 metres
1208:
I'd add that it seems a contradiction for the remover to say, on the one hand, too many reviews make the section unreadable and, on the other hand, the reviews were removed because they were summarised too briefly. A brief line encapsulating reviews by respected critics or publications would seem to
1134:
Regarding the differences, albeit minor, between the offending words as they appear in the title and in the body of the review: it is worth noting that titles in publications are frequently created by editors based on the reviews, rather than by the writers themselves who write the articles. This is
706:
What is the scope of the plot of this movie? Is it a true biopic in the sense that it covers
Armstrong's entire life after Apollo 11, or does it end at the climactic event of the first lunar landing mission? (I suspect it is the latter, but we can't know until we see the picture and thus can write a
1988:
Neil
Armstrong decribed as a calm man in documents and seen with smiling on some photos. In the movies he shown with depressed, frustrated. I think NASA psychology test dont allow such a person to run such a mission. "Ice Commander" shouldnt hit the console when landing. I think article should talk
1773:
This should be mentioned in the lead section later in the film's run, with retrospective articles talking about the film's underperformance preferably being cited. The disappointing performance is mentioned in the "Box office" section, which is sufficient for now. It has yet to open in four (major)
1640:
Neil
Armstrong is one of the most famous people on the planet. Janet Armstrong was almost unknown, so the fact she played such a major part of the film and attracted her own attention is noteworthy. It requires it's own subheading because it's not 'Critical response' or a reaction to not seeing the
1828:
The budget section is INCORRECT! A person who doesnât check their facts has posted the budget at 59-70 million and locked it there. It WAS 70 million but itâs been made abundantly clear (through the citations that even they post) that tax cuts have reduced it to 59 million. BoxOfficeMojo has even
1261:
Another point I want to add, is that we can have more summary sentences upfront identifying what critics in general liked or disliked about the film. We can't cherry-pick these trends; a source would need to report it for us. Essentially, we only sample reviews to give a rough idea of what critics
1239:
It's not a contradiction. Putting the sample-length matter aside, I removed some negative reviews because there were too many sampled for the critical consensus the film received. Even if all the samples had 2-3 sentences, I would have removed the same reviews anyway. I mentioned the sample-length
767:
Brodyâs piece for the New Yorker is not an actual review/criticism of the film itself, itâs just him finding things to complain about to tie it to politics (he says the film is hindered for not showing the female
Russian astronauts or Armstrongâs views of the Jim Crow south). I donât think it adds
1907:
In this case, I find ranging the budget from $ 59-70 million unnecessary, especially when itâs been labeled on IMDB and Box Office Mojo, which lists the budget and tracks the revenue, as $ 59 million. As for sources? They were already listed! The
Hollywood Reporter and other articles listed were
1313:
Agreed, especially on the "Political stance of the film" section. The fact that two completely opposite opinions are stated shows that this is not a real notable "controversy", but simply observations made by those journalists. I also agree on shortening the American flag section, although Donald
1462:
included it, which I suspect to be the case. The astronauts were permitted to carry personal objects with them, and I remember hearing at least one other Apollo astronaut left something from one of his children on the Moon. I doubt this would be something the screenwriter just threw in. I saw no
1161:
OK. The reasons for removing that have been provided - âclick bait troll reviewâ, âvirtue signalingâ âdisingenuousâ, of no âvalueâ, thatâs itâs just a âprovocative statementâ, that it is an âopinion pieceâ and not a âreviewâ (!!!) - are all far more subjective and, in my opinion, contrary to the
783:
Agreed, this is barely a professional review. It is, as an other editor said, mostly a provocative click-bait article with phrases as "right-wing blowhards". The New Yorker also published a much more positive review that graded the film a 8/10, which is the one that is used on Metacritic. Not to
995:
That works too, but I think the law of diminishing returns applies to the number of reviews being added. The more we add, the less readable the section becomes. Unfortunately, this section is not written well, simply pulling one sentence from each review, which is a gross oversimplification. I
918:
A well-received film should not have anywhere near half of its critical reception sampling non-positive coverage. Of course, we have to consider proportionality with the number of reviews to be sampled. There's no exact number, but there is probably a number too low and a number too high.
1960:
rather than the cost after taxes, which is not the same thing, and the label claims to be listing the production budget not the "cost" (and the true cost, would include other expenses such as P&A). The failure of editors to agree in the past resulted in the instructions not to cherry
1641:
stars and stripes. I'm open to other suggestions as to where it might go (I considered writing a separate article about her, but imagined it would get short shrift from the male dominated editors on Knowledge). I imagine if the sub-section was longer, you'd say it was too long anyway :)
1625:
I don't know, it's unclear to me what the section is supposed to say. This is not a controversy or a big part of the film's reception, and many biographical films spark some new interest in the subject matter. Not to mention how short it is. Does it really require its own section?
802:
Okay, let's talk about this review again. I'm of the opinion that if this review is to be included in this article, the part calling it a "right-wing fetish object" should be dropped, as it is just a provocative statement that was chosen to make a good click-bait headline.
1936:
Also, please bear with me if some of my comments appear blunt. The first, as I said, was an accident and not intended for anyone on this forum. Sometimes I acccidentally send things somewhere and I donât know how! Iâm newer at this, so please bear with me.
1162:
spirit of Knowledge than actually permitting the review to remain intact. One removal suggested that it was inappropriate to have two differing reviews from the same publication. However, this has occurred on Knowledge before⊠with the same two writers from
996:
generally prefer at least 2-3 sentences per review, unless one sentence can truly encapsulate the critic's sentiments. So if someone were to sample the reviews more thoughtfully, we'd have more in-depth wording and even less reason to add more reviews.
1262:
thought, but we can only do that on an individual basis. This is done because summary sentences are not routinely available for all films. The more summary sentences we can find and include, the less need we have for sampling individual reviews.
711:
those details, despite the fact Kranz is more famous for Apollo 13 than Apollo 11). The character descriptions should fit the context of the film, despite the fact they are real-world people notable for events outside the scope of the film.
1480:
says that there was a period of time where Armstrong wandered to the Little West Crater, of which it's unknown what he did. So it's possible that he did in fact leave something from his daughter. Maybe this is worth including?
1848:
clear that the budget is $ 59m. Box Office Mojo isn't a definitive source, they can also be wrong. Do you have a good source saying the budget if $ 59m after tax cuts? If so, I'd be happy to change the budget in the article.
1389:
To quote the article "If you believe those who say First Man was hurt by Ryan Goslingâs âglobalistâ defense of director Damien Chazelleâs decision not to depict astronaut Neil Armstrongâs planting of an American flag on the
2206:. Unless a secondary source has identified factual errors in the film, and published info about them, Knowledge editors shouldn't really be discovering factual errors themselves (or at least they shouldn't be adding their
1240:
because you seemed to imply that the section was too small as a result. If we expanded on the reviews currently being sampled, then we would have a bigger section without the need to add more reviews, positive or negative.
2238:
Did I miss something? Science fiction? Unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theories, the film depicts historical *facts*, not historical *fictions*. I think this needs to be changed to a more appropriate genre.
908:"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."
1209:
be a sensible approach for a film that has had so much real-world reaction. It could possibly result in a paragraph of the more negative comments and a (hopefully) longer paragrapg of positive reactions.
871:
has culled four of the five negative reviews from the article, there must be 125 positive reviews somewhere. Anyone fancy finding them and adding them to the article?! It all sounds a bit unbelievable.
825:
The review's article body says "right-wing fetish object" where the title says "accidental right-wing fetish object". Primarily for this inconsistency, I'm fine with changing it and have re-worded it
957:
The solution would be to add the positive reviews, rather than delete negative ones (from highly respected sources), especially after someone has taken time to inlcude the criticism and cite it.
1674:
I agree that the subsection is not of value to have, as it stands. I don't know about the French source, but the other two are fast-facts and a tabloid. It isn't enough to sustain a subsection.
1395:
1375:
1337:
2394:
400:
278:
595:
1294:
The American flag controversy section seems to be too long. I suggest shortening it, leaving only one paragraph, that would mention Marco Rubio's original statement and Chazelles
2334:
1863:
I found the Variety article you were probably talking about (mentioning the budget being $ 70m before tax incentives and closer to $ 60m after) and have added it to the article.
683:
538:
245:
152:
2399:
1334:
The website, which had earlier downplayed the flag controversy, is now stating that Internet criticism related to the controversy probably hurt the film at the box office.
612:
357:
1351:
If you read the article, you'll see that it is purely hypothetical. They are not stating anything, simply calculating how many dollars each word of Gosling's statement
1829:
corrected it to 59 million. Someone needs to unlock it and correct it once and for all! It makes a significant impact on the audienceâs POV of its box office revenue.
784:
mention that this is not a common opinion (as far as I know this reviewer is the only person who shares it) and as such not notable enough to include in this article.
1512:
1437:
Is the scene showing Armstrong dropping Karen's bracelet into Little West crater accurate? Would the article benefit from a section on Historical Accuracy? Thanks! --
1426:
1042:
I would suggest that the now-deleted four-word phrase from the Brody review quite clearly "encapsulate(s) the critic's sentiments" better than the current revision.
376:
274:
2389:
648:
638:
2359:
405:
2076:
the issue; presumably Republicans opposed omission of the flag raising while Democrats defended it. And there is no reason to call it a "made-up controversy".
768:
anything to the article, and to lead it off with âitâs a right wing fetish objectâ only shows that the review (and itâs inclusion here) are purely political.
2374:
2314:
510:
500:
2404:
602:
2329:
347:
1908:
rounded or written before the clarification was made. Itâs been widely stated that $ 59 million was the budget, because $ 70 million was before taxes.
2379:
2309:
2294:
124:
114:
1477:
1454:
607:
2384:
2354:
1922:
I apologize for the first comment - it was made in reply to someone who messaged me quite rudely. I didnât know I had created a forum! My bad.
1295:
476:
2369:
2344:
2299:
1758:
381:
1969:
1891:
1809:
1793:
1693:
doubt there will be an appetite for a full article about her, in the typical Knowledge spirit of erasing women's contributions to history.
1569:
2324:
2246:
1578:
578:
533:
90:
2090:
Sure cause the flag IS in the film.. the "controversy" was created by certain individuals to score political points and stoke outrage.
2319:
2289:
2043:
1774:
markets: Germany, Mexico, Columbia and Japan. For all we know it overperforms there and manages to break even. It's simply too early.
590:
1399:
1379:
1341:
2349:
1655:
Oh no I completely understand that it attracted attention to her. It's just that this subsection has nothing to say beside the fact
467:
428:
2364:
1880:"If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range."
1968:
of the various figures, in either Production or Box office sections, which unfortunately this article does not yet include. --
1557:
1452:
Reliable sources would be required to say anything about historical inaccuracy, and there seems to be none. The original book,
1414:
318:
269:
194:
2339:
2304:
1886:
Some editors prefer to present the different budget figure, indicating that one is the "gross" and the other is "net", which
81:
58:
1954:
586:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
206:
198:
2117:; the bottom line is there is nothing wrong with the way the article stands and we shouldn't be arguing the controversy.
2036:
It says that both parties condemed that. However the source only shows republican politicians. Where are the democrats?
33:
1611:
In what way is it not notable? It's sourced to international news coverage and directly related to the film's release.
1707:
A full article is definitely possible because the film has led to significant coverage about the real-life person per
1175:
1724:
1683:
1524:
1271:
1105:
1005:
928:
846:
745:
It starts with Armstrong's last x-15 flight and ends with him in quarantine...anything more than that is a spoiler.
736:
202:
189:
147:
2109:
over the flag's presence or absence in the film, but about the choice to not show the astronauts raising the flag.
2270:
1762:
1335:
1973:
1895:
1813:
1797:
1504:
1182:) whose legacy of film criticism is, possibly, the most important one in the history of American periodicals.
1582:
1359:
they had any effect on the box office. Nowhere does it say that it probably hurt the film at the box office.
2250:
750:
2122:
2081:
2047:
1468:
1409:
Why should we respect an ignorant article that says Armstrong planted the flag? It was Aldrin. Anyway, as
717:
73:
52:
2141:
Is this necessary? Why should an actual image of Buzz Aldrin with the flag be included in this article?
1877:
39:
1508:
1751:
Where in the article can we add that this movie was a box office flop? Can i mention it in the lead?
2266:
2242:
2095:
2063:
2039:
1868:
1864:
1854:
1850:
1779:
1775:
1754:
1712:
1665:
1661:
1631:
1627:
1601:
1597:
1486:
1482:
1410:
1364:
1360:
1319:
1315:
1089:
903:
830:
808:
804:
789:
785:
773:
570:
1938:
1923:
1909:
1830:
21:
2142:
1990:
1942:
1927:
1913:
1834:
1542:
1442:
657:
235:
475:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
89:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2146:
1299:
1183:
1136:
1043:
746:
459:
1596:
Is this subsection of the "Reception" section really necessary? It does not seem notable to me.
554:
527:
2118:
2077:
1887:
1464:
1374:
I'm afraid that has nothing to do with the fact that the article mentioned Internet criticism.
713:
2160:
2009:. If so, that would be a bad idea. If not, can you clarify the types of changes you propose?
1883:
It was incorrect to delete the Hollywood Reporter source, and the range should be presented.
1565:
1422:
1303:
1187:
1140:
1047:
911:
310:
2215:
2091:
2059:
1965:
1956:
and this is why I would prefer to list the higher figure because it represents the actual
1708:
1698:
1646:
1616:
1459:
1214:
1093:
962:
877:
834:
769:
2180:
2172:
Neil Armstrong on the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission, with multiple U.S. flags shown.
2168:
1330:
Deadline Hollywood has apparently reversed its earlier backtrack of the flag controversy
2114:
2021:
1720:
1679:
1538:
1520:
1438:
1267:
1170:
1164:
1101:
1001:
924:
842:
732:
443:
422:
2283:
1844:
I reverted your edits because you didn't explain them. I wouldn't say it's been made
583:
2207:
2013:
2006:
1964:
More important than attention grabbing figures in the Infobox, what is needed is
727:
I agree with your assessment, and I would support scaling back the descriptions.
193:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
675:
472:
181:
2211:
1694:
1642:
1612:
1210:
958:
873:
665:
560:
449:
300:
171:
165:
141:
2164:
Buzz Aldrin salutes the flag placed on the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission.
2072:
No, it doesn't say both parties "condemned that"; the lead says both parties
2176:
2017:
1716:
1675:
1534:
1516:
1500:
1263:
1135:
why I had quoted the article itself specifically, rather than the headline.
1097:
997:
920:
868:
838:
728:
323:
294:
263:
582:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
366:
2274:
2254:
2219:
2184:
2150:
2126:
2099:
2085:
2067:
2051:
2025:
1995:
1977:
1946:
1931:
1917:
1899:
1872:
1858:
1838:
1817:
1801:
1783:
1766:
1728:
1702:
1687:
1669:
1650:
1635:
1620:
1605:
1586:
1546:
1528:
1490:
1472:
1446:
1403:
1383:
1368:
1345:
1323:
1307:
1275:
1218:
1191:
1144:
1109:
1051:
1009:
966:
932:
881:
850:
812:
793:
777:
754:
740:
721:
2235:
is a 2018 American biographical science fiction drama film directed...".
210:
86:
390:
1394:âthen Goslingâs explanation cost up to $ 45,000 a word this weekend."
2167:
2159:
2058:
Pretty sure democrats didn't buy into the made up controversy.
2198:. Though this time there were citations, these were not about
15:
656:
389:
365:
234:
1392:
and the Internet is crawling with those who make that claim
85:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
2262:
2195:
1085:
826:
1314:
Trump's comments seem notable enough to include here.
471:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2016:, not Neil Armstrong, who was the "Icy Commander".
867:If Metacritic says 96% of reviews are positive and
2395:C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
209:. To improve this article, please refer to the
2265:, now reverted. Thanks for pointing this out.
1290:Shortening of Political controversies section
684:WikiProject Film - American cinema task force
8:
2335:C-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
2005:like you're suggesting injecting opinion or
1458:can be easily consulted to see if historian
1084:Link to my removal of some negative reviews
322:, which collaborates on articles related to
2400:Unknown-importance American cinema articles
2194:I've removed the 'Factual errors' section,
1463:obvious, glaring inaccuracies in the film.
1296:response in Variety on September 10th, 2018
2240:
2037:
1752:
522:
417:
258:
205:. To use this banner, please refer to the
136:
47:
1660:that they had been married for 38 years.
1535:https://www.popsci.com/first-man-accuracy
702:Scope of real-life character descriptions
1966:a proper explanation in the article body
1455:First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong
2156:I have removed both, of which I placed:
524:
419:
260:
138:
49:
19:
2390:Low-importance United States articles
1396:2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3
1376:2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3
1338:2601:447:4101:41F9:C98:E47A:6B77:D2F3
7:
2360:Low-importance Solar System articles
576:This article is within the scope of
465:This article is within the scope of
316:This article is within the scope of
187:This article is within the scope of
79:This article is within the scope of
2375:Low-importance spaceflight articles
2315:American cinema task force articles
1495:"There seems to be none"? Googling
1413:says, "it is purely hypothetical."
623:Knowledge:WikiProject United States
38:It is of interest to the following
2405:WikiProject United States articles
1168:! It can be found on the page for
1096:, any thoughts on Sionk's points?
626:Template:WikiProject United States
14:
2330:Low-importance Astronomy articles
485:Knowledge:WikiProject Spaceflight
243:This article is supported by the
2380:WikiProject Spaceflight articles
2310:C-Class American cinema articles
2295:Low-importance Cold War articles
2115:you got me to fall for your bait
668:
563:
553:
526:
488:Template:WikiProject Spaceflight
452:
442:
421:
303:
293:
262:
203:regional and topical task forces
174:
164:
140:
72:
51:
20:
1497:"first man" historical accuracy
902:What does not seem believable?
643:This article has been rated as
505:This article has been rated as
352:This article has been rated as
332:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomy
119:This article has been rated as
2385:C-Class United States articles
2225:Opening sentence of article...
335:Template:WikiProject Astronomy
99:Knowledge:WikiProject Cold War
1:
2355:C-Class Solar System articles
2275:12:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
2255:19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
2229:The opening sentence reads, "
2052:22:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
2026:23:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
1996:21:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
1947:12:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
1932:12:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
1918:20:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
1802:12:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
1570:12:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
1427:12:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
1276:14:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
1219:07:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
1192:23:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
1145:23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
1110:20:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
1052:23:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
1010:20:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
967:19:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
933:18:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
882:18:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
851:14:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
813:13:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
681:This article is supported by
479:and see a list of open tasks.
398:This article is supported by
374:This article is supported by
102:Template:WikiProject Cold War
93:and see a list of open tasks.
2370:C-Class spaceflight articles
2345:Low-importance Moon articles
2300:Cold War task force articles
1978:14:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
1900:21:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
1873:13:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
1859:15:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
1839:13:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
1784:13:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
1767:12:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
1729:15:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
1703:14:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
1688:13:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
1670:13:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
1651:19:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
1636:16:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
1621:16:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
1606:23:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
1547:19:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
1529:18:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
1499:shows numerous results like
1491:18:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
1473:16:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
1447:12:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
1404:17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
1384:17:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
1369:16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
1346:15:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
1324:22:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
1308:10:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
794:18:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
778:18:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
1587:08:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
755:00:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
741:14:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
722:14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
2421:
2325:C-Class Astronomy articles
2261:Subtle vandalism added by
2220:18:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
649:project's importance scale
511:project's importance scale
358:project's importance scale
246:American cinema task force
219:Knowledge:WikiProject Film
125:project's importance scale
2320:WikiProject Film articles
2290:C-Class Cold War articles
2185:23:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
2151:10:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
2127:14:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
2105:No -- the controversy is
2100:23:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
2086:17:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
2068:22:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
1818:17:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
664:
642:
579:WikiProject United States
548:
504:
437:
397:
373:
351:
288:
242:
222:Template:WikiProject Film
159:
118:
67:
46:
2350:Moon task force articles
1888:would also be acceptable
1808:Except it wasn't a flop
584:United States of America
2365:Solar System task force
2202:, or factual errors in
1953:closer to $ 60 million"
1711:, which would override
1592:Janet Armstrong section
1478:This piece from Esquire
468:WikiProject Spaceflight
401:Solar System task force
2173:
2165:
661:
629:United States articles
394:
370:
239:
28:This article is rated
2340:C-Class Moon articles
2305:C-Class film articles
2171:
2163:
1984:Depressive characters
1878:Template:Infobox_film
1176:Alejandro G. Iñårritu
660:
393:
369:
319:WikiProject Astronomy
238:
910:Similar logic under
571:United States portal
491:spaceflight articles
82:WikiProject Cold War
2196:added back recently
2012:By the way, it was
1433:Historical Accuracy
1174:, the 2014 film by
597:Articles Requested!
195:join the discussion
2174:
2166:
1792:Columbia? Really?
662:
460:Spaceflight portal
395:
371:
338:Astronomy articles
240:
34:content assessment
2257:
2245:comment added by
2137:Buzz Aldrin image
2113:Congratulations,
2054:
2042:comment added by
2007:original research
1958:production budget
1769:
1757:comment added by
763:New Yorker review
699:
698:
695:
694:
691:
690:
521:
520:
517:
516:
416:
415:
412:
411:
257:
256:
253:
252:
197:and see lists of
135:
134:
131:
130:
105:Cold War articles
2412:
1562:
1419:
678:
673:
672:
671:
631:
630:
627:
624:
621:
573:
568:
567:
566:
557:
550:
549:
544:
541:
530:
523:
493:
492:
489:
486:
483:
462:
457:
456:
455:
446:
439:
438:
433:
425:
418:
340:
339:
336:
333:
330:
313:
311:Astronomy portal
308:
307:
306:
297:
290:
289:
284:
281:
266:
259:
227:
226:
223:
220:
217:
190:WikiProject Film
184:
179:
178:
177:
168:
161:
160:
155:
144:
137:
107:
106:
103:
100:
97:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
2420:
2419:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2280:
2279:
2267:Jmorrison230582
2227:
2192:
2139:
2034:
1986:
1826:
1759:197.185.101.150
1749:
1594:
1558:
1460:James R. Hansen
1435:
1415:
1332:
1292:
765:
704:
674:
669:
667:
628:
625:
622:
619:
618:
617:
603:Become a Member
569:
564:
562:
542:
536:
490:
487:
484:
481:
480:
458:
453:
451:
431:
377:Moon task force
337:
334:
331:
328:
327:
309:
304:
302:
282:
272:
224:
221:
218:
215:
214:
180:
175:
173:
150:
104:
101:
98:
95:
94:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
2418:
2416:
2408:
2407:
2402:
2397:
2392:
2387:
2382:
2377:
2372:
2367:
2362:
2357:
2352:
2347:
2342:
2337:
2332:
2327:
2322:
2317:
2312:
2307:
2302:
2297:
2292:
2282:
2281:
2278:
2277:
2226:
2223:
2191:
2190:Factual errors
2188:
2158:
2157:
2138:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2111:
2070:
2033:
2032:About the flag
2030:
2029:
2028:
2010:
1992:Beyond silence
1985:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1970:109.77.214.206
1962:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1892:109.79.176.202
1884:
1881:
1861:
1825:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1810:137.188.108.55
1806:
1805:
1804:
1794:103.40.150.146
1787:
1786:
1748:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1593:
1590:
1573:
1572:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1493:
1434:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1388:
1372:
1371:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1291:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1180:The New Yorker
1165:The New Yorker
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
818:
817:
816:
815:
797:
796:
764:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
703:
700:
697:
696:
693:
692:
689:
688:
680:
679:
663:
653:
652:
645:Low-importance
641:
635:
634:
632:
616:
615:
610:
605:
600:
593:
591:Template Usage
587:
575:
574:
558:
546:
545:
543:Lowâimportance
531:
519:
518:
515:
514:
507:Low-importance
503:
497:
496:
494:
477:the discussion
464:
463:
447:
435:
434:
432:Lowâimportance
426:
414:
413:
410:
409:
406:Low-importance
396:
386:
385:
382:Low-importance
372:
362:
361:
354:Low-importance
350:
344:
343:
341:
315:
314:
298:
286:
285:
283:Lowâimportance
267:
255:
254:
251:
250:
241:
231:
230:
228:
186:
185:
169:
157:
156:
145:
133:
132:
129:
128:
121:Low-importance
117:
111:
110:
108:
91:the discussion
77:
65:
64:
62:Lowâimportance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2417:
2406:
2403:
2401:
2398:
2396:
2393:
2391:
2388:
2386:
2383:
2381:
2378:
2376:
2373:
2371:
2368:
2366:
2363:
2361:
2358:
2356:
2353:
2351:
2348:
2346:
2343:
2341:
2338:
2336:
2333:
2331:
2328:
2326:
2323:
2321:
2318:
2316:
2313:
2311:
2308:
2306:
2303:
2301:
2298:
2296:
2293:
2291:
2288:
2287:
2285:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2247:87.115.33.111
2244:
2236:
2234:
2233:
2224:
2222:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2189:
2187:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2170:
2162:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2136:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2110:
2108:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1994:
1993:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1934:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1920:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1882:
1879:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1847:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1746:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1713:WP:INVALIDBIO
1710:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1658:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1591:
1589:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1579:98.164.71.229
1576:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1561:
1554:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1479:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1418:
1412:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1289:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1167:
1166:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
968:
964:
960:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
934:
930:
926:
922:
917:
913:
909:
905:
904:WP:PROPORTION
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
883:
879:
875:
870:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
814:
810:
806:
801:
800:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
782:
781:
780:
779:
775:
771:
762:
756:
752:
748:
747:Arglebargle79
744:
743:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
723:
719:
715:
710:
701:
686:
685:
677:
666:
659:
655:
654:
650:
646:
640:
637:
636:
633:
620:United States
614:
611:
609:
606:
604:
601:
599:
598:
594:
592:
589:
588:
585:
581:
580:
572:
561:
559:
556:
552:
551:
547:
540:
535:
534:United States
532:
529:
525:
512:
508:
502:
499:
498:
495:
478:
474:
470:
469:
461:
450:
448:
445:
441:
440:
436:
430:
427:
424:
420:
407:
404:(assessed as
403:
402:
392:
388:
387:
383:
380:(assessed as
379:
378:
368:
364:
363:
359:
355:
349:
346:
345:
342:
326:on Knowledge.
325:
321:
320:
312:
301:
299:
296:
292:
291:
287:
280:
276:
271:
268:
265:
261:
248:
247:
237:
233:
232:
229:
225:film articles
212:
208:
207:documentation
204:
200:
196:
192:
191:
183:
172:
170:
167:
163:
162:
158:
154:
149:
146:
143:
139:
126:
122:
116:
113:
112:
109:
92:
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
2241:â Preceding
2237:
2231:
2230:
2228:
2203:
2199:
2193:
2175:
2140:
2119:JustinTime55
2106:
2104:
2078:JustinTime55
2073:
2044:37.142.2.203
2038:â Preceding
2035:
2014:Alan Shepard
2002:
1991:
1989:about it...
1987:
1957:
1935:
1921:
1906:
1845:
1827:
1753:â Preceding
1750:
1656:
1595:
1577:
1574:
1559:
1496:
1465:JustinTime55
1453:
1436:
1416:
1391:
1387:
1373:
1356:
1352:
1333:
1293:
1179:
1169:
1163:
915:
907:
766:
714:JustinTime55
708:
705:
682:
644:
608:Project Talk
596:
577:
506:
466:
399:
375:
353:
317:
279:Solar System
244:
188:
120:
80:
40:WikiProjects
676:Film portal
482:Spaceflight
473:spaceflight
429:Spaceflight
182:Film portal
2284:Categories
2092:Spanneraol
2060:Spanneraol
1865:Sandrobost
1851:Sandrobost
1846:abundantly
1776:Sandrobost
1662:Sandrobost
1628:Sandrobost
1598:Sandrobost
1537:Thanks! --
1483:Sandrobost
1411:Sandrobost
1361:Sandrobost
1316:Sandrobost
1094:TropicAces
1090:Sandrobost
835:TropicAces
831:Sandrobost
805:Sandrobost
786:Sandrobost
770:TropicAces
211:guidelines
199:open tasks
2263:this edit
2232:First Man
2204:First man
2200:First Man
1939:S26205229
1924:S26205229
1910:S26205229
1831:S26205229
1539:Lbeaumont
1439:Lbeaumont
912:WP:WEIGHT
709:emphasize
329:Astronomy
324:Astronomy
270:Astronomy
2243:unsigned
2143:Soronast
2040:unsigned
1755:unsigned
1709:WP:BASIC
153:American
96:Cold War
87:Cold War
59:Cold War
2210:here).
2074:debated
1725:contrib
1684:contrib
1560:â O'Dea
1525:contrib
1417:â O'Dea
1272:contrib
1171:Birdman
1106:contrib
1006:contrib
929:contrib
847:contrib
737:contrib
647:on the
509:on the
356:on the
123:on the
30:C-class
2003:sounds
1824:Budget
1300:Chegis
1184:Micpoc
1137:Micpoc
1044:Micpoc
906:says,
613:Alerts
539:Cinema
36:scale.
2212:Sionk
2208:WP:OR
1961:pick.
1890:. --
1695:Sionk
1643:Sionk
1613:Sionk
1390:moonâ
1355:cost
1353:would
1211:Sionk
959:Sionk
874:Sionk
2271:talk
2251:talk
2216:talk
2181:talk
2147:talk
2123:talk
2096:talk
2082:talk
2064:talk
2048:talk
2022:talk
2018:TJRC
1974:talk
1943:talk
1928:talk
1914:talk
1896:talk
1869:talk
1855:talk
1835:talk
1814:talk
1798:talk
1780:talk
1763:talk
1747:Flop
1721:talk
1717:Erik
1699:talk
1680:talk
1676:Erik
1666:talk
1657:that
1647:talk
1632:talk
1617:talk
1602:talk
1583:talk
1566:talk
1543:talk
1521:talk
1517:Erik
1513:this
1509:this
1505:this
1501:this
1487:talk
1469:talk
1443:talk
1423:talk
1400:talk
1380:talk
1365:talk
1342:talk
1320:talk
1304:talk
1268:talk
1264:Erik
1215:talk
1188:talk
1141:talk
1102:talk
1098:Erik
1086:here
1048:talk
1002:talk
998:Erik
963:talk
925:talk
921:Erik
878:talk
869:Erik
843:talk
839:Erik
827:here
809:talk
790:talk
774:talk
751:talk
733:talk
729:Erik
718:talk
275:Moon
216:Film
201:and
148:Film
2177:X1\
2107:not
2001:It
1727:)
1686:)
1527:)
1274:)
1108:)
1008:)
931:)
849:)
739:)
639:Low
501:Low
348:Low
115:Low
2286::
2273:)
2253:)
2218:)
2183:)
2149:)
2125:)
2098:)
2084:)
2066:)
2050:)
2024:)
1976:)
1945:)
1930:)
1916:)
1898:)
1871:)
1857:)
1837:)
1816:)
1800:)
1782:)
1765:)
1723:|
1701:)
1682:|
1668:)
1649:)
1634:)
1619:)
1604:)
1585:)
1568:)
1545:)
1523:|
1515:.
1511:,
1507:,
1503:,
1489:)
1471:)
1445:)
1425:)
1402:)
1382:)
1367:)
1357:if
1344:)
1322:)
1306:)
1270:|
1217:)
1190:)
1143:)
1104:|
1092:,
1088:.
1050:)
1004:|
965:)
927:|
914:,
880:)
845:|
837:.
833:,
811:)
792:)
776:)
753:)
735:|
720:)
537::
408:).
384:).
277:/
273::
151::
2269:(
2249:(
2214:(
2179:(
2145:(
2121:(
2094:(
2080:(
2062:(
2046:(
2020:(
1972:(
1941:(
1926:(
1912:(
1894:(
1867:(
1853:(
1833:(
1812:(
1796:(
1778:(
1761:(
1719:(
1697:(
1678:(
1664:(
1645:(
1630:(
1615:(
1600:(
1581:(
1564:(
1541:(
1519:(
1485:(
1467:(
1441:(
1421:(
1398:(
1378:(
1363:(
1340:(
1318:(
1302:(
1266:(
1213:(
1186:(
1139:(
1100:(
1046:(
1000:(
961:(
923:(
876:(
841:(
807:(
788:(
772:(
749:(
731:(
716:(
687:.
651:.
513:.
360:.
249:.
213:.
127:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
