Talk:Sputnik 99
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Yoninah in topic Did you know nomination
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sputnik 99 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Sputnik 99 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 January 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know 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) 00:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
( )
that the Sputnik 99 (RS-19) satellite was deployed from the Mir space station even though its primary mission package, a radio transmitter, had been purposely disabled?(weebau.com) (skyrocket) (Fact Sheet)
ALT1 ... that during a spacewalk, French spationaut Jean-Pierre Haigneré, a crew-member of the Mir space station, deployed Sputnik 99 onto earth orbit by simply releasing the satellite by hand? (astronautix.com)ALT2 ... that Sputnik 99, a satellite designed to broadcast commercials promoting the Swatch watch on amateur radio bands, was deployed without its batteries, immediately becoming another piece of space debris?(weebau,com)
- Reviewed: Positioning theory
- Comment: Permission is granted to make minor alterations to Hook(s) as you see fit.~GQ
Created/expanded by GenQuest (talk). Self-nominated at 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
What makes weebau.com a reliable source? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, Gog the Mild, thanks for your review and taking an interest in the article. The Weebau.com site is a compendium of space vehicle references from the multitude of governments and organizations operating space launch vehicles up through 2011 (I think). The (secondary source) site has a listing of the primary references it uses to present its information. The reference links can be found HERE. I just used WeeBau because it's one of several such collections online. I could also use one of the other germane references in the article if necessary, as I like duplication of sources. (I will go ahead and do that anyway). I'll see if I can find on-line access to any of the primary sources as well. GenQuest "scribble" 04:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi GenQuest, what I would be looking for on this sort of site would be some sort of solid editorial oversight, eg on my last DYK review the source was a similar website, but I was reassured that the page in question wasn't just one person's opinion by the qualified looking editorial group - here. If weebau gives references, consider using them instead of weebau where appropriate.
- At the moment the sentence in question in the article has 3 sources, but only weebau mentions the facts in the hook. If you could support them with another reliable source, that would be helpful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gog, the primary and printed secondary sources, I fear, are all off-line, and Russia isn't advertising this one anywhere I can find. I'm still looking, and I added a german site, which verifies the same info, but not sure it's going to be any help? There is This Fact Sheet site, too. GenQuest "scribble" 19:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- GenQuest, sadly not. Even if I were to approve it, it would be bounced by the main page folk. If you can't find a more reliable verification, maybe we should consider changing the hook? I have switched to ALT1, which is reliably sourced, but if you could properly support ALT0, that is hookier. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can't get a bigger library right now that might have something on ALT0, so changing the hook is OK by me. The bit about hand-releasing the thing into orbit was surprising to me, and I thought that was a good hook (or some close variation of it). GenQuest "scribble" 22:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Tagging review as unresolved. Yoninah (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, I had, I thought, struck ALT0 and approved ALT1 - which does not appear to have any issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- GenQuest, sadly not. Even if I were to approve it, it would be bounced by the main page folk. If you can't find a more reliable verification, maybe we should consider changing the hook? I have switched to ALT1, which is reliably sourced, but if you could properly support ALT0, that is hookier. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gog, the primary and printed secondary sources, I fear, are all off-line, and Russia isn't advertising this one anywhere I can find. I'm still looking, and I added a german site, which verifies the same info, but not sure it's going to be any help? There is This Fact Sheet site, too. GenQuest "scribble" 19:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- At the moment the sentence in question in the article has 3 sources, but only weebau mentions the facts in the hook. If you could support them with another reliable source, that would be helpful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild, Yoninah, I guess green-light the ALT1, then. No luck on ALT0 without access to copies of the printed papers and mags mentioned in those on-line refs. GenQuest "scribble" 15:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, promoting ALT1. Sorry I missed the ping. Yoninah (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)