Talk:Kosmos 1408/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: CactiStaccingCrane (talk · contribs) 10:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, here we go! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review! I'll try to start tackling these points later this week. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Numbers based on Special:Diff/1060061284:
 * Reference 1, 2, 7, 9, 24 is certainly not reliable, as these are published without any editoral oversight. See the policy for more details
 * Suggestion: Consider mining sources available at hand.
 * Many references do not have author information.

Content review

 * Lede: Good! no major complaint there.
 * Mission: Cannot complain, as the USSR is highly secretive at their missions. However, I have some complaint at formatting:
 * sounds like someone can read their minds. Consider rephrasing to could not convince.
 * is redundant. an option is better.
 * to all satellites combined
 * is very, very vague in my opinion. What is the payload? What is Kosmos designation? Is it from 1962 to 1965, or just the years 1962 and 1965?
 * sounds like the department cannot convince itself to an onlooker
 * . Again, what payload? Is it the satellite? Or, is it something else?
 * What aspect is it? Is it angular resolution or field of view?
 * Spacecraft: There are some issues at editorializing at this section. Consider adding alternative text to the image for the blind or low-bandwidth readers to understand what's going on.
 * to Kosmos-1408 was a part of the Tselina-D constellation.
 * to The satellite weighed 1,750 kg (3,860 lb) with 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) radius at the body.
 * The paragraph is decent, but I suggest to get rid of "launch vehicle" linking because it is redundant. See WP:Linking if you want to find more about this.
 * is quite excess. In my opinion, the trimmed paragraph but it has operated for around two years is way better.
 * This sentence, like some others in the article, is missing a complete clause. A clause in English can be thought of as a full sentence, and generally, when use linking words such as "and", "but", "so", it links two complete clause together. In this case, It did not have a propulsion system is perfect, but is not optimal. Rewrite the clause to the satellite could not de-orbit itself at the end of service.
 * to Its orbit slowly decayed

That's it for now! Ping me if you have any questions! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Response
Thanks again for the review! Sorry for the delay in replying, it's been a busy week. I've implemented most changes based on your review, but there are some I haven't implemented. Here are the reasons why I haven't implemented them:
 * What aspect is it? Is it angular resolution or field of view?
 * I don't know. References are ambiguous, and I can't find a good source that would let me clarify this in the article.


 * to Kosmos-1408 was a part of the Tselina-D constellation.
 * 'system' seems to be preferred to 'constellation', and is used consistently in the article. In general, "constellation" refers to astronomy constellations, while 'system' is more relevant for these technical systems.


 * to The satellite weighed 1,750 kg (3,860 lb) with 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) radius at the body.
 * Weight relies on gravity, mass is independent of that. I don't understand what you mean by 'at the body'.


 * Reference 1, 2, 7, 9, 24 is certainly not reliable, as these are published without any editoral oversight. See the policy for more details
 * I've double-checked these references, but I think that they are reliable. 1 & 2 are to pages published by Jonathan McDowell. 7 and 24 are by LeoLabs, I'll start an article on them soon, again they seem reliable though. Less sure about 9, I'll look into this more. In general they seem OK, and 'editorial oversight' as described that policy seems to refer to sponsored sources, which really doesn't apply here.

On mining sources: I've tried to do this, will double-check it soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying to me! I will review everything later though, since I am pretty busy both at Wiki and in real life. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder about this for when you have the time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I gonna skim through the article again and see what needs to be fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sum up
From Good article criteria:


 * 1a: No complaint here, stuff can be fixed but it has vastly improved since the start of the review, pass.
 * 1b: Lede ok, layout is acceptable, no word-to-watch is found. Pass.
 * 2a: Obvious pass
 * 2b: Verifiable, pass
 * 2c: Spot-checked, no original research is found
 * 2d: Checking, no copyvio is found
 * 3a: Article does not "drift" to other topic, pass
 * 3b: Good enough, summarized the situation
 * 4: Pass
 * 5: Obvious pass
 * 6a: Tagged, pass
 * 6b: Pass

Well, then, congrats! That's a good read. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * To make sure that this is not rubberstamped, look above. The incident is pretty obscure in technical details, so the article is what would I've expected. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)