Talk:Elektron (satellite program)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elektron (satellite program)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 05:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Will look at the article over the next few days.

Amitchell125 Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Lead section[edit]

Done
  • Is 'Elektron' a satellite or a multiple-satellite program? I'm not clear how it can be both. Consider that the title of the article be changed to 'Elektron (satellites)' or 'Elektron (satellite program)'.
Moved to Elektron (satellite program)
Moved without a period for consultation, but I don't think it matters as the change was not controversial. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such has been my 'modus operandi' when they're articles I've created in the first place (and the change is trivial). :) --Neopeius (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the need for the hyphen in multiple-satellite.
deleted
  • ...several-month lifespan… - you need to be more specific here, and include the actual operational period in the main body. See my comment in Mission section for the dates involved.
I just got rid of the mention of lifespan. I put it in detail lower in the article. --Neopeius (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Elektron' is also referred to as Electron (e.g. by NASA here) and this needs to be included in this section.
Done
  • The summaries for the images in Wikicommons come from here.
Added references (the cite was already in the article, so that works out -- actually, I can also add that url as part of the citation now; I'd used a scanned book from my personal collection.)
  • …radiation… - consider amending to '...radiation from space...' (assuming I am correct).
Radiation 'in' space :)
  • The bottom of the infobox just says 'Elektron', with 2 references - not needed?
Not needed.
  • The lead section is not yet a 'summary of its most important contents', e.g. consider including: the satellites were launched in pairs, that there were two identical pairs launched with identical experimental packages, that two satellites no longer orbit Earth.
Try it now. Taking a break. Will move on. --Neopeius (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Done.
  • Move the link for Van Allen radiation belts to its first occurrence in the paragraph.
Done.
Done.
  • ...micrometeoroid flux. Is the term flux used here in the same way as Flux ('the rate of transfer of particles through a unit area')? If so, it can be linked.
Done.
  • ...the Elektrons. - amend to 'the Elektron satellites.'.
Done.
  • (60 degrees vs. 30 degrees latitude) - this needs to be explained more fully to readers.
done
  • What does radio propagation mean here?
Clarified
  • The decree dates from reference 1 (May 1960 and 1961) needs to be included.
See below.
  • I'm not sure that p. 240 is the right page for verifying the text that precedes reference 3. In an interesting section of the book, the 'Big Space Plan' is discussed from p. 236-242, but reading it though, there's only one mention of Elektron (on. 240), which only notes that it was included as a point in the plan.
Separated into two paragraphs, the first relating what's in the Siddiqi, the other what's in Astronautix.
  • Reference 5 verifies what TASS reported about the mission on 2 Feb 1964, not about the design features of the satellites and their payloads. What TASS reported could be good to add in the Missions section, though.
I just killed that whole sentence that ultimately was redundant once I found more information on the experiments.
  • Page number (p. 162) required for reference 6.
Added.
Done with this section. Thank you. --Neopeius (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft design[edit]

Done.
  • 20 m^2 - needs editing where it occurs (to m2) and converting to 'sq ft' ('20 square metres (220 sq ft)').
Done.
  • Avoid 1/3 and 2/4 which could be mistaken for the fractions (e.g. ) - several occurrences within the text.
Fixed.
  • ...ultimately massed… - 'ultimately had a mass of…'. (several occurrences within the text).
Done
  • They were cylindrical with six solar panels with a combined area of 20 m^2 for power generation. - Ref 1 doesn't appear to mention any of the information in this sentence. However, the information can be found in Corliss (Reference 7), so this needs sorting.
Fixed.
Done with this section, thank you. --Neopeius (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missions[edit]

  • Link shock wave; turbulent.
Done (linked the former to Bow Shock)
  • Per the Soviet news agency, TASS,… - amend to 'According to the Soviet news agency TASS,…'.
I killed this sentence -- it's redundant now that I have better operational dates.
  • ...completed 6. it's normal practice to use words for numbers up to ten.
Ditto.
  • The values for Elektron 1's apogee are given twice, but they don't match; ditto Elektron 2's perigee values.
I ended up just using SP-133 for everything. NSSDC has one parameter that's obviously wrong and no way to tell what period they are snapshotting. SP-133's data is clearly close to initial values. I also arranged the information more compellingly.
  • Reference 6 (p. 162) describes how the different orbits were achieved by the satellites that were launched together - consider adding this information.
Unfortunately, that page is no longer available to me. Can you add this information?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include that they were launched "without much fanfare", according to p. 152 of Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1964.
I disagree with Dr. Sheldon's opinion. Define fanfare. :)
Actually, looking again, I disagree too, sofanfare doesn't matter now. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption should really read ...Elektron 2 and Elektron 4….
Changed for economy and consistency to Elektrons 2 and 4 (ditto 1 and 3).
  • I have produced an SVG version of the orbits diagram, at [1], to replace the current one. It includes the direction of the magnetic field lines, normally included in all similar such diagrams. Worth replacing the current image?
I love it! Tell me if you like the new caption.
Caption is now better, glad you like the diagram. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...were still operating as of 6 February 1964. - Ref 9 states (in incorrect English) that: " ...Elektron-2 (observations from February to April 1964) it is 0.2, for Elektron-4, whose observation period runs from July to November 1964…". Use this information to be more specific about the time in which these satellites were active. The lead section should also be amended to reflect this information.
I've updated these entries.
  • All of the Elektrons were launched in pairs into orbit via Vostok 8K72K rocket - to improve the prose, consider amending to 'The Elektron satellites were launched in pairs using the Vostok 8K72K carrier rocket.'.
  • The first paragraph in this section is only one sentence long, which normally discouraged at GA. I would include with it that they were all launched from Launch Complex 1 at Baikonur Space Center, and remove the 'Mission 1' and 'Mission 2' subtitles.
I actually like the subtitles -- instead, I killed the first sentence and incorporate the information in the body.
  • Use this (or something similar) to connect the name NIIP-5 (used to identify the site from which the satellites were launched in reference 10) with its later name, Baikonur (used in the article).
Done, thank you.
Done with this section. Whew! --Neopeius (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy and status[edit]

  • Link hydrogen; carbon; oxygen; ions.
Done.
  • ...operated for several months,… - this is vague, you should give the date when the satellites stopped operating (see above).
I just got rid of it now that it's covered better earlier.
  • ...supported many technical papers… - avoid many.
Made more accurate.
  • Two peacock words in this section that shouldn't be in the text: many; considerable.
  • The Elektron satellites operated for several months,… - no need to repeat this here, as it is already covered in the Missions section.
Exactly :)
Done.
  • Reference 22 (used twice) has a different citation style for the page numbers, but the style needs to be consistent throughout the article.
I think that's the only reference where I have two different highly disparate page numbers. I hate doing the same source twice, preferring to rp them. Do you have a suggestion?
Probably to leave it alone! Amitchell125 (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done with this section. Home stretch! --Neopeius (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Link Siddiqi to this.
Done.
  • Link Gatland to this.
No longer a reference...and WOW, the archive just takes what it wants, doesn't it?
Yep, but it's used a lot by Wikipedians. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Corliss to this. Also, link William R. Corliss.
Done
  • Combine the references to Corliss with a page range pp. 711-713 (there's not a lot of text to find, so the multiple page reference is fine).
Fixed
  • Link Jonathan McDowell (refs 10 & 24).
Done -- I had to change first and last to just name in terms of field.
  • Be consistent about NASA or the full name (no need for the latter).
Done.
  • Ref 16 looks like only p. 259 is needed, not pp. 259-. If I am wrong, please include the exact pages for the citation.
Fixed, but I also killed that citation anway
  • Add a (subscription required) template to reference 18.
Done
  • Include the pages (p. 3 for reference 19, p.1 for reference 20) The exact dates for the operational dates of all of the satellites appear to be stated within these sources, and I think this information should be included in the article.
Done for all three, though rp's for such short references seems a bit superfluous.
Done.

External links[edit]

Seems excessive (I had considered that).
I concur. AM
  • If you access the Copyvio detector link in the GA toolbox (within the article's talk page), you can see that some of the phrases in the article should be adjusted to avoid them matching the websites they came from. There is inevitably going to be duplicated text within an article like this, but for GA the prose shouldn't be identical, and so a little 'tweaking' is needed.
Done.

On hold[edit]

This looks like a long list, but the article is already in reasonably good shape and these amendments will not take you too long (I hope). Putting it on hold for a week. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amitchell125 No, these are great, thank you. :) I'll do my best to work on it this week (things exploded so I may be delayed...) The only difficult I see is the lifespan of the satellites -- I know they worked for much of the year from the scientific articles and the data they cite, but it's difficult to get specific beyond "several months" because the articles don't do a great job of assigning which data to which satellite. --Neopeius (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know how soon you can be started on the issues I have raised, as the article has been on hold for nearly a week, and it would be a shame for it to fail when a few hours' work could get it to GA. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to work on it this coming week. For many reasons, some related to the current crisis, I was unable to work on it last week (as I indicated earlier). Thank you for your patience. --Neopeius (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amitchell125 --Neopeius (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir/madame/your grace, went above and beyond the call of duty. I am embarrassed to have given you an article in such a state -- this was my very first, and it evolved haphazardly. I'm glad it's GA worthy, now. Please enjoy my token of appreciation (check your talk page). Amitchell125--Neopeius (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing[edit]

Hello Neopeius, passing the article now (I'll read through it to check once more, but will only make very minor changes to the prose if there's something we've not spotted). It's a great little article and thanks for helping to make the review process a joy for me. Congratulations, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) (sir).[reply]

DYK nomination[edit]

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 Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created/expanded by Neopeius (talk). Self-nominated at 14:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article was promoted to GA status the day before the nomination, no close paraphrasing was found, and the hook is cited inline (assuming good faith as it is an offline source). The article otherwise meets other DYK article criteria. As a space buff I find the hook to be interesting, but I would welcome any second opinions from other editors who are less familiar with the topic. The nominator has only two prior nominations so no QPQ is needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review! I can probably just get rid of that source, actually -- that information is also in SP-133, which is online (and it was what I used as the source for the DYK). --Neopeius (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did just that. No good faith need be assumed! --Neopeius (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook wording is rather repetitive (satellites...satellites...launched...launched). Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about ALT1: ... that the 1964 Elektron satellites, launched in pairs to simultaneously measure the upper and lower Van Allen Belts, marked the first time multiple satellites were orbited on a single Soviet rocket? Source: [url=https://archive.org/details/scientificsatell00corl/page/711-3/mode/2up]
I think double occurrence of satellites in separate clauses is okay. If you have suggestions, I'm all ears. Yoninah --Neopeius (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Neopeius: thank you. Now there's just the matter of adding an inline cite to the article where the first hook fact appears (I tagged it for you). Yoninah (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah I'm afraid I haven't a clue how to do that. Can you put it in so I have an example for next time? --Neopeius (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Neopeius: it's just a citation. You have one at the end of many other sentences. Is the citation the same as the one at the top of this template? Yoninah (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. The citation didn't change just because we changed launched to orbited. :) Yoninah --Neopeius (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, see what I did so you can do it too when asked in future. The hook fact is on p. 711. Restoring tick for verified fact per Narutolovehinata5's review. Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see the confusion. I had already changed my citation per Narutolovehinata5's note. :) Anyway, thanks for your help! Yoninah --Neopeius (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019 B-class review[edit]

I am recommending this article stay at the start-class. The article itself is well-cited, but doesn't do a thorough enough job of explaining the different satellites. The information under "spacecraft design" should also include information about the scientific payloads. Additionally, the "Missions" section should better explain the missions themselves, as it just has a short blurb about each mission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and fair assessment. I'll dig through the scientific papers and see if I can glean more about the instrumentation that way. --Neopeius (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improving[edit]

Found a great resource with more information. Scientific payloads have been improved. Working on mission information (think there's stuff in AandA for 1964). At that point, will polish for B. I think GA will require more historical information. --Neopeius (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B class[edit]

I think we're at B class now, having improved the spacecraft and mission/legacy sections. I'm going to see if AvWeekly has anything noteworthy to add. If so... we may be go for GA --Neopeius (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

Reviewed AV. I think I'm done. The only places I could see improving would be to describe the experiments in greater detail in the article itself (but I don't think that's much use to the lay reader) and to go into more detail about the measurements made (again, may be too nitpicky). --Neopeius (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elektron_(satellite_program)&oldid=1212919898"