Talk:SOLRAD 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 23:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Hi. Some slightly random first impressions to get us started.

• The last three sentences of the second paragraph of "Mission and results" need citing. As a bare minimum, each paragraph needs to end with a reference.
• Each time you introduce an acronym it should be given in full - as you do with NRL, but don't eg with SOLRAD or GRAB. (NASA is excused as it is assumed to be commonly understood.)
• You have material in the lead and infobox which is not in the main article. The first two are meant to be a summary of the article and selected information from it respectively, so that shouldn't happen. Eg the launch vehicle and the launch time.
• Who are the four people in the second picture? Engineers, scientists, technicians, tourists, a bit of each, one of each?

Let me know if any of this doesn't make sense or if you disagree. I have run a couple of "apps" over the article, changes are here. Let me know if you would like an explanation of any of the changes made. More tomorrow, my time. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the help!

1. Fixed (all of the info between the last cite and the SP100c cite were under that same source, but I recognize the need for multiple instances of the same cite (in case someone else changes things).

Yes. With PLP I sometimes find myself putting the same reference after four sentences in a row. Otherwise after six weeks someone inserts a new, sourced sentence and someone else removes the first two sentences as "not in source given". Less important for this sort of article, but the MoS lays down minimum requirements.

1. Fixed!
2. Ah, I was unclear how the lead paragraph should be. Citations have been moved to the body proper and removed from the lead and summary. Information cited in those places has also been put in the body. I'll retrofit my other articles, too (and pray no one tells me I need citations in the header and summary!)

If this happens, give me a ping. I am not saying that I would disagree with them, but I would be interested in the discussion.

1. Fixed and added a cite (I suspect they are engineers, but there's no way to tell. I am certain they are associated with NRL, however).

--Neopeius (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References.

• You should either give a publisher location for all of your (book and journal) sources, or none. All is the norm.
• Books should all have an ISBN or OCLC number.
• For both of the above, WorldCat is your friend. For example, see here for the publisher location (New York) and OCLC (1032873498 - scroll down) of Collier's Encyclopedia.

Prose.

• " It was not a stand-alone satellite but rather a set of scientific experiments bundled with the electronic surveillance (ELINT) satellite" This is not, to my eye, very clear. Could you consider rewriting it, even if that increases the length of the lead. (Which is on the short side, given the article length. Entirely acceptable, but you have some words to spare.)
• "the nation's first satellite program" You haven't established which nation. Suggest 'the United States first...'
• Optional. "astronomers desired to fly instruments above the atmosphere to get a better look at the Sun." Reads a little clunkily to me. Suggest "desired" -> 'wanted'.
• "atmosphere blocks huge swaths" "huge swathes" is a bit WP:FLOWERY. Suggest 'large parts'.
• "The Navy wanted to know when its communications were going to be unreliable" Suggest "be" -> 'become'.
• "to cheaply and efficiently produce a satellite bus for the surveillance mission" "satellite bus" is a bit technical. Could you either Wikilink it, or rephrase it, or explain it, briefly, in text?
• "Like its immediate predecessor, Vanguard 3, the spacecraft was roughly spherical, 51 cm in diameter, 19.05kg in mass, and powered by four circular patches of solar cells" Assuming that SOLRAD 1 was only like Vanguard 3 in the first of these particulars, you will need to recast this sentence. (If they are alike in all four ways, apologies.)
• "thus scanning the whole sky with no source in particular" Is "source" the right word here?
• Optional. "but they had been totally saturated by the background radiation" Suggest deleting "totally". (Or rephrasing.)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: References

I think I got them all. That's an invaluable source, thank you!

Re: Prose

Thanks again.

1. Yeah, I rewrote the opening before I even read your comments. :)
2. Fixed when I rewrote the beginning.
3. Done.
4. Done.
5. Done.
6. Three out of four. Fixed.
7. Yes, but not without explanation. Fixed.
8. Fixed

--Neopeius (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have done a little copy editing. Shout if it seems problematic.
• Out of interest, is this your first GAN?
• An explanation of what "data-acquisition passes" are would be helpful.
• "All told" - does this add any information? I would be inclined to delete it.
• "detectable X-ray output in the ranges SOLRAD could see" I suspect that "detectable" and "could see" are trying to convey the same information. If so, one of them should go.
• Optional. "as short a time as": WP:FLOWERY? -> 'just'?
• "SOLRAD 1 was also assayed for its ability to enforce a nuclear test ban treaty" "enforce"? Perhaps 'monitor'?
• An OCLC for cite 17? (860060668)
• Cite 19 needs a publisher location and an OCLC. See here.
• The lead is a little short. Maybe a sentence or two, in a new paragraph, on the mission results?

1. I liked all of your edits but separating out the parenthetical, which is ungrammatical.. ^^;;;
2. My very first. I'm taking lots of notes. Thank you so so much for taking the time to hold my hand through this. Not only is this giving me lessons to apply to my other articles, but it also gives me guidelines for helping others.
3. Done.
4. Welcome the Redundancy Department of Redundancy. I will direct your call to me before directing your call...
5. "as little as" (splitting the difference to ensure accuracy)
6. I rewrote that paragraph. It was always cumbersome.
7. Like whackamole. Got it.
8. If it was a snake, it would have bit me. Got it.
9. Good call. Added (and noted my favorite tidbit that is usually lost -- that SOLRAD 1 is really Vanguard 4)

Are we close? :) --Neopeius (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You want grammatical as well! You should have said. We are done. You are the proud creator of a hard earned Good Article. Well done; a nice little article.

If you need advice, or get stuck on something, feel free to give me a ping or post on my talk page. If I can't help, I will commiserate. When you have other GANs feel free to give me a ping; I don't promise that I will pick them up, but I probably will. Ah, you have already - clearly you are ahead of me in the space-time continuum.

It is less than a year since I got my first GA. The inhouse magazine of the MilHist project asked me to write up what the journey was like. A sneak preview may, or may not, amuse you - Wikipedia is another country.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

What a lovely article! Thank you for the reference and for writing it. I am a very new fish, having started Wikipedia editing in earnest just about a month ago. I'd done some work fifteen years ago, but it was the Wild West then. I am a professional space historian, so I might have a bit of a leg up on research and such, but in terms of knowing what's wanted here and the right way to present it, well, it's all new.

Thanks to your taking the time to help me, I now feel like I can make my works worthy to be up here. --Neopeius (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would qualify it in the lede as the first "electronic" surveillance satellite, as Corona (satellite), the first photographic surveillance satellite, predates it by about a year. RobDuch (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Upon further review, I see that Corona didn't have a successful mission until August 1960. RobDuch (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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