Talk:Sputnik 1/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello ! Before I start reading in detail, here some points that catched my eye from a first fly-over:
 * Please make sure that all sentences are sourced. This is not the case in multiple cases.
 * Please remove or rework the "In popular culture" section, according to the template.
 * I would avoid abbreviations such as IGY. As long as the lemma of the respective article is not using the abbreviation (which it is not: International Geophysical Year), I would always use the long form. It really helps the reader a lot, and we don't have space constraints here.
 * See Manual_of_Style/Layout; this section could be much shorter. It should not contain links that are present in the article body already, and the links should be relevant, indirectly related topics. If, e.g., Kerim Kerimov is relevant, might it be better to mention him directly in the article body?
 * Apart from that, it looks good so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Some paragraphs are lengthy in a way which may superficially make it looks like the statements aren't cited, however it seems like the article is reasonably well cited. It's just that the event was so momentous and thus well documented that a single citation provides the basis for some larger blocks of text, which are in fact cited, the citation is simply lower down than you might usually expect. If you believe this not to be the case it would be helpful if you quoted the individual statements of concern, or just be bold and cite or remove them.
 * No, I was referring to sentences at the end of paragraphs that have no reference, for example These weight reductions were accomplished by removing the inertial guidance system, several telemetry measurements, and assorted hardware designed to support a warhead. There are a number of them.
 * I wasn't sure what to do with "in popular culture", so I thought I'd wait for consensus in the review. To me it looks like the references are minor and trivial, and therefore I would remove the whole section. Do you concur?
 * Yes, just remove. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The abbreviations which refer to locations and organizations in the united states and other english speaking countries have appropriate context (for example the radio station W2AEE). Other abbreviations refer to various Russian government bureaus, which I do not believe need to be expanded on, as the abbreviations are of their Russian, which would not match their corresponding english name.  It may merit adding some notes, if you believe this to be necessary, but I don't speak Russian and am not an expert on the Russian space program or government, so that might need the attention of a pretty niche expert.
 * The following can be removed form "see also": Explorer 1, Sergei Korolev, Space Race, Sputnik crisisas they are mentioned in the body. I will remove them in the next few days if no-one objects on the talk page.
 * Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Removed un-cited statements, added citations to end of paragraph where necessary. Now running citation bot, todo verify that the listed museums have replicas of Sputnik.Ethanpet113 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Still a couple of abbreviations that (in my opinion) should be spelled out: ICBM, TASS …
 * T+98 seconds – maybe a brief explanation or wikilink here? I fear that many readers will not understand.
 * electrical short – I would even link terms like this, although I guess most people will know, but it doesn't hurt.
 * Maybe link Strap-on to Booster (rocketry)?
 * at six separate observatories and telegraphed to NII-4.[32] Located back in Moscow (at Bolshevo), NII-4 was a scientific research arm – the explanation what NII-4 is comes too late. If it isn't explained within the same sentence (or earlier), the reader (as I did initially) will search for that in the text he just read thinking he must have overlooked it.
 * Tracking of the booster during launch had to be accomplished through purely passive means such as visual coverage and radar detection. R-7 test launches demonstrated that the tracking cameras were only good up to an altitude of 200 km (120 mi) but radar could track it for almost 400 km (250 mi). – has no source.
 * The control system of the Sputnik rocket was adjusted to an intended orbit of 223 by 1,450 km (139 by 901 mi) – But these numbers give just the minimum and maximum distance from the earth, right? I was confused here, as I expected that orbit size would be the greatest and smallest diameter of the orbit (both of which would be much larger)?
 * You give orbit parameters for the Sputnik rocket only, but not for the satellite itself? Are these identical? Maybe this could be clarified.
 * I really enjoy the read. Will do the rest soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several maintainance templates in the references section ("permanent dead link"; "full citation needed"; "season & episode needed"; "page needed"; "not in citation given"). Could you resolve these?
 * Source #75: Can you give Title, Author, Publisher, Year? The citation has no information at all. If the link gets unavailable in the future, there would be no chance to relocate that source.
 * That's it! As soon as the above is addressed, I am happy to pass it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I just checked out a couple books to work on this article. I can try to knock out some items above if Ethanpet113 is fine with it.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just cause I opened the review doesn't mean I have some exclusive ownership of it. I encourage anyone with expertise to help, you don't need my consent.Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have my hands full with other articles right now, would you be able to take care of some of the above? This is an article we wanted to DYK for the Apollo 11 anniversary.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Status query
It has been a month since the last post here. Where does the article and review stand now? There has been some progress in the inline citations. Jens Lallensack, have most of your issues been addressed? (As there's currently a "citation needed" tag and a "not in citation given" tag, both of which have to be addressed before passage, there is still some work to go.) Ethanpet113, Kees08, Coffeeandcrumbs, are any of you able to deal with what remains to be done? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no specialized knowledge of Sputnik 1 I just found this interesting, well written and fairly comprehensive. I removed any statement for which I could not find a citation, except for the one about sputnik's payload which feels plausible, but for which I could not find an online citation. seemed interested so I figured that may get resolved.  But maybe a citation can't be found because that's either made up, or it's on a Russian site somewhere I can't find or understand.  The issues highlighted in the original are:
 * In popular culture removed(fixed)
 * See also trimmed(fixed)
 * Acronyms:I expanded the acronyms of Russian organizations and American news stations where possible, and I just now linked LOX to liquid oxygen. Other acronyms are various code names and serial number for rocketry components that don't really expand into anything.
 * Citations: I would recommend that if Kees can't find that last citation, it should be removed by him or  after which Jens should take another look at the state of the article.
 * Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will get to work on these. I have a Sputnik book checked out from the library that I am reading, and I am addressing other issues in the article as well.  Kees08  (Talk)   22:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After working through this a bit, it seems like it is in worse shape than I thought. It can be fixed up to GA-level of course, but it will take some time. As long as we are actively improving it I imagine the nomination can stay open, but it will probably be a couple of weeks at least (depending how much time we spend on it).  Kees08  (Talk)   00:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is a long way from being perfect, but the criteria for GAs are not that high. Of course I would be extremely happy to see more efforts, but I would consider it a pass once all instances where a source is lacking are dealt with. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's true. I have been spending too much time at FAC. I will get it cited probably by the end of the day.  Kees08  (Talk)   21:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I added citations where needed and removed information when I could not find any. I trimmed what I deemed extraneous information as well (you may want to look at my recent edits). Is that sufficient for GA, or is there other work you would like performed?  Kees08  (Talk)   04:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Though I just see that many of the points I raised above have not been dealt with … they are not particularly difficult to fix, but would improve reading experience a lot in my opinion. It would be nice if at least most of these could be addressed somehow, as I fear they will be forgotten otherwise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot about the other citation issues. Working those today.  Kees08  (Talk)   20:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I got all the citation issues fixed I believe. Was there anything else I missed from above?  Kees08  (Talk)   06:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, sorry for having you check. I jumped into this in the middle and was not sure what was done already. If you are not sure too, I can go through the article history and start checking them off.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GA level should have been reached in any case. Promoting now, congrats everybody! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)