- The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 10:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Kosmos 2481
edit- ... that satellite Kosmos 2481 was launched by a rocket called rockot?
Created/expanded by Secretlondon (talk). Self nom at 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Newly created, more than 1500 characters, interesting hook, but where is the sourced for "It was launched by a Rockot carrier rocket with a Briz-KM upper stage at 01:35 UTC on 28 July 2012." ? Is it footnotes 1 and 2 and the end of the section's paragraph?
Aaron • You Da One 13:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Date and length fine. Photo licensed-I'm impressed by your work on the image. Article well-referenced, no copy vios detected. Ref 3 AGF. Small copy edits. QPQ done. One small item: the pdf for Ref 6 is 80 pages. It needs a page(s) number so I can check that last source. Thank you. Anne (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Erm I reviewed this 25 minutes ago. Aaron • You Da One 13:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Aaron, the source for the sentence above is in Refs 1 and 2, as well as some of the other sources. Anne (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. The references would be better placed at the end of the sentence which has been used for the book, otherwise it just looks like WP:OR. Aaron • You Da One 13:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Aaron, the source for the sentence above is in Refs 1 and 2, as well as some of the other sources. Anne (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The ref to the 80 page pdf has page numbers - page 15 in both cases - small number after each mention. Best (only?) way of doing page numbers with list defined references. Secretlondon (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Erm I reviewed this 25 minutes ago. Aaron • You Da One 13:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Just made a slight copy-edit to put the references at the end of the sentence which is the hook. It is now good to go. 
Aaron • You Da One 13:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like it's going to have two reviews. I finished my copy edit portion of the review at 13:04 Wikipedia time. (I've seen other noms where two editors reviewed an article at the same time.) Anne (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Please do not attempt to hide my review of this article. Anne (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, look at the History. You wrote a review 16 minutes after I had published mine. I've said it's good to go. It doesn't need to have two reviews. Aaron • You Da One 13:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- No one is attempting to take away your credit for doing a review. However, as an editor who did a thorough review of this article this morning, including copy edits that were finished 12 minutes before you signed off on your review, I have a small concern that needs to be addressed. I don't know why you are persisting at this. It seems an incredible waste of time. And I don't appreciate your attempt to hide my review or subsequent comments. Anne (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand how you are saying you did it before me? Are you saying it took you hours and hours to review a hook? It only takes a couple of minutes, max. Aaron • You Da One 15:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can't believe that you're still obsessing about this. However, it does concern me that you believe that a thoughtfully researched and written article with eight sources, including an eighty page pdf, only deserves "a couple of minutes, max" of review. Anne (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- It really doesn't take that long, especially not 30 minutes. Aaron • You Da One 17:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you are only taking 2 mins max you are not doing it properly. Secretlondon (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- It really doesn't take that long, especially not 30 minutes. Aaron • You Da One 17:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can't believe that you're still obsessing about this. However, it does concern me that you believe that a thoughtfully researched and written article with eight sources, including an eighty page pdf, only deserves "a couple of minutes, max" of review. Anne (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand how you are saying you did it before me? Are you saying it took you hours and hours to review a hook? It only takes a couple of minutes, max. Aaron • You Da One 15:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- No one is attempting to take away your credit for doing a review. However, as an editor who did a thorough review of this article this morning, including copy edits that were finished 12 minutes before you signed off on your review, I have a small concern that needs to be addressed. I don't know why you are persisting at this. It seems an incredible waste of time. And I don't appreciate your attempt to hide my review or subsequent comments. Anne (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, look at the History. You wrote a review 16 minutes after I had published mine. I've said it's good to go. It doesn't need to have two reviews. Aaron • You Da One 13:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have other unreviewed hooks if people want - Template:Did you know nominations/Okno-S and Template:Did you know nominations/Krona-N. Thanks to both of you for reviewing my work. Secretlondon (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)