Talk:Reduced Gravity Walking Simulator

A fact from Reduced Gravity Walking Simulator appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Apollo astronauts walked on walls (pictured) before walking on the Moon?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reduced Gravity Walking Simulator.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Astronaut training in the Reduced Gravity Walking Simulator. This position meant that a person's legs experienced only one sixth of their weight, which was the equivalent of being on the lunar surface.

... that Apollo astronauts walked on walls (pictured) before walking on the Moon? Source: [1]: "A person lies sideways, supported by slings around their waist and rib cage, which are attached to very long cables connected to a mounting point somewhere above them. Instead of touching the floor, their feet actually touch a wall that is slightly tilted, so it’s not exactly perpendicular to the floor. This gives them a fake “ground” to practice walking, running, and jumping on without feeling the full force of Earth’s gravity."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tokamak de Fontenay aux Roses
- Comment: The photo was promoted for FP, and the hook wouldn't make sense without it.

Created by Artem.G (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

Artem.G (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed:
Used in article:
Clear at 100px: - I wonder if we should extract a cropped version of the photo for use in DYK just to remove the negative space around the people. We only get 100px here, so I think it might be worth it to zoom in a bit. Thoughts?

QPQ: Done.

Overall: It took me a minute to find where the hook is mentioned in the article, and I think that's because the article mentions the walls instead as a surface "9.5° angle from horizontal". Should this be "9.5° angle from vertical" instead, since it's almost vertical? Other than these couple of questions, looks good to me. @Artem.G Bsoyka (t • c • g) 03:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey Bsoyka, thanks for the review! I'll think about the crop, or maybe css crop can be used? Will experiment with it a bit later from a laptop. Regarding the vertical or horizontal angle, this is from a source If we want a simulated gravitational field (and free-fall acceleration) of 1.63 m/s2, then the person and floor would need to be leaning 9.6 degrees from being completely horizontal. I think 9.5 is from a 1965 paper, will check it again. Let me know if it's confusing, and I will think about better phrasing. Artem.G (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Artem.G: Not sure CSS cropping can be done here since we have to use the {{Main page image/DYK}} template—probably easier to just extract a new version solely for DYK, more details on that here. Now with the phrasing, I understand it more with that source because it says the person is almost horizontal, which makes much more sense. I think the relevant sentence in the article needs to be adjusted to say that, because it doesn't make sense to just say the walkway is almost horizontal. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 14:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bsoyka:, paraphrased a bit, let me know if it's still confusing, though I don't think I'd understand it without a photo. What do you think about the cropped variant? Artem.G (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Artem.G: Still maybe a little confusing, but better. And I think the cropped photo is perfect. Calling this one good on my end—thanks for the changes! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 17:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walkway Orientation

In the article body, it describes a walkway "inclined 9.5 degrees from the horizontal." All of the gallery images show the walkway inclined about 9.5 degrees from _vertical_. Kelseymh (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]