Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/PSLV-C5

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

PSLV-C5

edit
(
)
Sketch of Indian expendable launch vehicle, PSLV.
Sketch of Indian expendable launch vehicle, PSLV.
  • ...that PSLV-C5 (pictured) deployed the IRS-P6 satellite into orbit in 2003, the then heaviest and most sophisticated satellite built by the Indian space agency?

Created by AKS.9955 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Some issues found.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 15:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ✗ This article is too short at 1294 characters (the DYK minimum is 1500 characters)
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (2.0% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not sure how the bot calculated the length, but it is well above 1,500 characters. Reviewer, please advice if you have any observations. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 20:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment Botop here; while a small discrepancy between the bot's count and the count from Shubinator's tool is normal, Shubinator's tool gives 1313 characters, within margin of error and still too short for DYK. Intelligentsium 21:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Lead section: 615
  • Mission highlights: 180
  • Payload: 362 520
  • Launch & planned flight profile (excluding table): 335
  • Total: 1,492. 1,650.
Will expand further Article expanded to desired length. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 21:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • AKS.9955, DYK requires a minimum of 1500 prose characters, which does not include tables, bulleted lists, blockquotes, etc. The article is currently 1472 prose characters according to DYKcheck, which is the gold standard for determining DYK article length. You may wish to start using it, since your current method is not accurate. Please continue expanding the article, as it is not yet long enough. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello BlueMoonset, I am aware about the requirements. The eligibility criteria reads "Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc.)". It does not mention anything about bulleted lists. Besides, what we read under the section Mission highlights is not a typical list but are the summarized highlights. I am only going by the DYK rules and trust this will be in order. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, AKS.9955, but a bulleted list is a form of list, and what you quoted above has "lists" in what is ignored in the DYK count. You need to get to 1,500 excluding all that other material. It shouldn't be that difficult, since the infobox contains information not in the article proper, such as the end of mission information, which ought also to be in the article and sourced. If you want the Mission highlights section to count, then you should convert it to prose; as long as it's in a list, it will not count. I am troubled, however, by some errors in the text, and overreliance on pre-mission information. For example, the "pre-flight prediction of covering overall distance of 827 kilometres" (which is also problematic from a grammatical standpoint) is simply wrong. The flight needed to get to an altitude of 827 kilometres in order to insert the satellite into low earth orbit, but it traveled a great many more kilometres than that to get that high (it didn't go straight up). How far did it travel? Did it actually reach the predicted 827 kilometres? What was the eventual orbit of the satellite? Of the remaining stage of the rocket (in the "graveyard" mentioned in the infobox)? The article should be plenty long enough once you've addressed these issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. Length: Although the DYK rule does not specify it, but since you are the reviewer, I have to go by your judgement and will expand. Not a difficult task.
  2. End of mission (graveyard mention): In one of the PSLV related citations, I remember reading this but it appears that I forgot to add the reference. I am trying to search the link. If I cannot, I will delete the accidental un-sourcced information.
  3. Distance: I am sorry but I cannot draw my own conclusions here. Information quoted has been lifted from the official PSLV-C5 brochure.
    I will complete this and notify you. Thanks for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello BlueMoonset, as we discussed above, I have increased the prose length and deleted the mention of "graveyard orbit" since I am unable to find the reference I saw. Please let me know if something else is needed and apologies for the delay in finishing this. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • AKS.9955, the "pre-flight prediction of covering overall distance of 827 kilometres" phrase has not been changed: it is both inaccurate—altitude is not distance traveled—and the phrasing is ungrammatical. This has to be fixed. You should consider requesting a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors, since there are other problematic sentences. Even if the official brochure (a primary source written before the launch) doesn't have the information about total distance traveled or the orbit altitude of the satellite, there may be others that do: what about news reports from after the launch? As I said above, I believe the article relies too heavily on pre-mission information (plans) and not enough on post-mission information (what actually happened). Finally, until there is a working wikilink for PSOM, you need to (the first time it appears) either explain what that is, or at least give its full name. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Altitude & distance: I see where the confusion was. There was a typographical error and instead of altitude, I used the term distance. I have corrected it.
  • Post launch other sources: News reports such as this, which covered the launch does not talk about the actual altitude and lots of other actual key performance indicators.
  • Article depended on pre-launch information: Please understand that either pre or post, majority of the information will remain the same. What will differ are the launch timings, speed, time taken, altitude and distance. Only place where the planned information is mentioned is in the table under Launch & planned flight profile section.
  • PSOM: Done. I will also create this page in few days (just FYI).
    Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, is there anything else I need to do on this entry? Let me know. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • User:AKS.9955, the article still needs a copyedit: there are partial sentences, unclear antecedents, and other issues. I'm still troubled about the lack of actual information about the launch as opposed to predictive information about how it was supposed to go. (You acknowledge this yourself: What will differ are the launch timings, speed, time taken, altitude and distance. That's a lot—the actual results of the rocket's launch and flight!) This lack also applies to the satellite: the article says it had a design life of five years. Given that it was launched in 2003 and this is 2016, there should be actual information available about how long it remained in service, and whether it supplied the quantity and quality of data that was expected. Finally, the Sriharikota Launching Range was renamed to Satish Dhawan Space Centre in 2002 according to the centre's Wikipedia article, and news reports (including the Economic Times, ref 4) give the latter name for the launch indicating that the rename had happened by October 2003, so I've removed the assertion that the older name was used then. Unfortunately, this brings the article back down to 1450 prose characters, too short for DYK. Adding more information about the actual launch results and the satellite lifetime would solve this problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, thanks for your feedback. You must understand that if the information is NOT available on freely reliable and verifiable sources, then I cannot fabricate / speculate the information. Best is to leave the article with verifiable and reliable information available now, and in the future any user can improve the article as and when more information becomes available. Also understand that this article is about the launch vehicle and not the satellite. Details about the satellite are captured in the respective article. I will check for copyedit and also increase the length and ping you. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, following were the open points and action taken;
  1. Length: In excess of 1,700.
  2. Actual information about launch: Actual date and time already given. ISRO publishes only the flight plan and not the actual profile. The section has been clearly marked that the profile is planned. I don't see any policy / guideline that says this cannot be done.
  3. Runway: Thanks.
  4. Life of satellite: Although that information is not pertinent to this article, I have still added additional information and added citations also.
    Let me know if you need something else. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Full review needed by a new reviewer, since the article has not previously been long enough to qualify. The prose should be checked as part of the review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The article size is now 1672 characters, large enough. It was new when nominated. There are references, and it appears neutral. The image has a suitably free license and looks OK in miniature. copyvio check finds nothing. QPQ performed satisfactorily. Hook is short enough. The rocket appears to have launched the satellite, but the bit saying "then heaviest and most sophisticated satellite" is not in the article. The article says "heaviest and most sophisticated remote sensing satellite", so there could have been heavier satellites of other kind, such as communications. So please propose a new hook, or fix article if the hook is indeed correct. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've posted a follow-up final call on the nominator's page, after pinging there two weeks ago. Something needs to be done very soon to address the issues raised above by Graeme Bartlett. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that PSLV-C5 (pictured) deployed the IRS-P6 satellite into orbit in 2003, then the heaviest and most sophisticated remote sensing satellite built by the Indian space agency? Striking original ALT per Graeme Bartlett's concerns. Proposing a modified ALT1 to address them. Source: 8, note that Resourcesat-1 = IRS-P6 (this is stated later in the article). Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Hook ALT1 is 174 characters (determined by Windows bash wc) and so is short enough. ALT1 is in the article, referenced. The referenced web site is having trouble, but based on my checking for the original hook I know this is correct. Based on earlier check this is good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/PSLV-C5&oldid=1018284851"