Wikipedia

Talk:Luna 2/GA1

< Talk:Luna 2
Latest comment: 5 years ago by AhmadLX in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago49 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply


I will review this shortly. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Misc

Me and Kees08 are working on a dozen articles together. Rest assured, we are in agreement on this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space 2019/DYK for just one of the many places we are in discussion including about nominating this article for DYK after GAN is completed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Its all good; I will watchlist this and participate as needed. Kees08 (Talk) 18:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Link Doppler shift, booster, Space Race, Eisenhower.
  • If you are writing "U.S.", also write USSR as U.S.S.R, not as USSR. See MOS:US
  • "Although Luna 2 was a success for the Soviets,it also helped the U.S. by starting a trend of crash landing. ..." doesn't fit in section "Cultural Significance". Add it to the preceding section, or a new section "Aftermath".
  • Please remove duplinks.
  • Remove "Zarya - Luna 2 chronology" from external links: it is already used as a source.
  • "The scintillation counters would be used to measure any ionizing radiation; the Cherenkov radiation detectors would be measuring for electromagnetic radiation caused by charged particles." Why semicolon, why not "and"
  • "The last instrument on Luna 2 was, "a three component fluxgate...". Why comma here?
  • " ...to greatly reduce the energy upon reaching the surface...". Use impact force or impact velocity here.
  • "It was a capsule filled with liquid, with aluminium strips placed into it." It is not explained what was the purpose of the liquid.
  • "Launch was scheduled for 9 September". Add year.
  • "took a direct path to the Moon, with a velocity high enough to result in a travel time of around 36 hours." Infobox says launch to impact interval "1 day, 14 hours".
  • "visible disk on 1959 September 13". Be consistent with date format.
  • "The satellite's impact made it the first man-made object to crash-land on another celestial body." Was there any controlled landing before? If no, then make it land/hit/impact or something similar.
  • "cloud that would expand to 650-kilometer (400 mi) diameter that would be seen". Cut this "that would" please. Why not "cloud that expanded to 650-kilometer (400 mi) diameter and was seen"?
  • "Americans were still skeptical until Bernard Lovell was able to prove that the radio signal was coming from Luna 2". Please introduce him first: scientist/atrophysicist or whatever he was.
  • "was about 37,000 miles (60,000 km)". Reverse order to be consistent.
  • "Donald W. Cox explains...". Replace this "explains" with something more appropriate: writes/claims/argues etc. "Explains" is taking sides here. American probes also didn't provide "cars, refrigerator" to the people.


Sources & Verifiability

  • Three paras unreferenced and a cn tag.
  • Zak, Anatoly ([3]) only confirms that there were 3 failures before Luna 1. The rest isn't supported by it.
  • Harvey 2007, p. 22–24 doesn't support the claim "were not given official names".
    • p. 24 says "Only successful launchings and successful mission outcomes would be announced, [ Mikhail Suslov ] decreed..." I paraphrased that to Luna missions that failed to successfully launch or achieve good results were not publicly acknowledged. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Koren, Marina ([6]) doesn't say that Luna 2 was similar to Luna 1. It would be fine to use this source, if you have already described Luna 1's design with some other source.
  • Christy, Robert ([6]) and NASA-NSSDCA ([7]) don't support the following: "scintillation counters, Cherenkov detectors"
  • and that "There were no propulsion systems on Luna 2 itself."
  • Why is the instrument description copy-pasted from sources "Geiger Counter" ([9]) and "Triaxial Fluxgate Magnetometer" ([11])?
  • "Luna 2 carried five different instruments to conduct various tests while it was on its way to the Moon. The scintillation counters would be used to measure any ionizing radiation; the Cherenkov radiation detectors would be measuring for electromagnetic radiation caused by charged particles." is not supported by "Geiger Counter" ([9]). If "Lunar Impact capsule" ([10]) is meant, then it should be added to this specific claim.
  • Please arrange citations in the 2nd para of section "Payload" in such way that it is clear what claim is supported by which source. Now it appears as though all 4 sources support everything in the paragraph-which is not the case.
  • Ivanov, Stepan (12 September 2017) doesn't say that "Luna 2 hit the Moon about 800 kilometers (500 mi) from the centre of the visible disk on 1959 September 13 at 21:02:24 UTC."
    • Coffeeandcrumbs changed to coordinates and cited those Kees08 (Talk)
  • According to Harvey 2007, p. 30–34 impact speed was 3km/s (10800km/hr)
  • "The last stage of the rocket that carried Luna 2 did not carry any type of tracking device" isn't supported by "Luna 2" NASA. Should be replaced with Harvey 2007, p. 30–34.
    • Well, Harvey 2007, p. 31 and p. 33, seem to contradict each other about whether the last stage had a transmitter or not. But Mitchell 2008 confirms the last stage did have a transmitter, which could theoretically be used for tracking. I have chosen to omit a reason for why a location for the impact site was not calculated as the reason seems uncertain from comparing the sources. It is possible they just never bothered. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "as soon as the scientists of Luna 2 started receiving transmissions they sent out" suggests they made the details public. Source (Harvey) suggests they sent them to Americans only.
  • Now that you have Harvey 2007 and other books in footnote format, please cite things by specific page numbers, instead of ranges like 30–34.
  • "After this no one seemed to question the veracity of the Soviets." is not in Harvey 2007 p. 30-34.
  • Harvey 2007, p. 34 talks about detection of lunar ionosphere. Any reason you haven't mentioned it?
  • "Khrushchev, on his only visit to the U.S., gave President Eisenhower a replica of the Soviet pennants that Luna 2 had just placed onto the lunar surface." is supported by many sources- Harvey, History today etc. Why not use one of them instead of inaccessible Daniloff, N. (1972)?
  • "The only other known copy of the spherical pennant is located at the Kansas Cosmosphere". Cited source doesn't say that it is "the only other known copy of the spherical pennant".
  • "NASA used crash landings to test whether Moon craters contained ice by crashing impactors into craters and testing the debris that got thrown out". The source used here is from 2006 and says that Nasa "plans" to do it in 2008. You will have to find more recent source to claim that they "did".
  • One parameter in infobox is referenced, the rest are not.
  • Please use "Ogurtsov, Maxim; Jalkanen, Risto; Lindholm, Markus; Veretenenko, Svetlana (2 January 2015)." and other books in short-footnote like the four that already are in sfn.
  • When citing books, use year of publication instead of date: ABC (2010) instead of ABC (24.10.2010).
  • Every article in "Space Exploration and Humanity: A Historical Encyclopedia" is written by a named author. Include this in the bibliography: ABC (2010). "XYZ". In Johnson, Stephen Barry (ed.). Space Exploration and Humanity: A Historical Encyclopedia.ABC-CLIO. For this you will have to use cite encyclopedia template instead of cite book. Remove page number from the template.
  • How can The space race; from Sputnik to Apollo, and beyond be published in 1962 when that was just the beginning of the Space Race? I as having issues finding more information on it online. Kees08 (Talk) 16:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please note that "hold" is for seven days and will end on 11 July. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Images

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Is there anything else you are aware of that needs addressed? I will take another look after work. Kees08 (Talk) 16:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so. @AhmadLX: is there is anything we missed? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Passing on the assumption that you will take care of the English variety: I see "kilometre" as well as "quantization", please check for others. Otherwise nice work, congratulations. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luna_2/GA1&oldid=1127484294"