Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SOLRAD 2/archive1

SOLRAD 2

 * Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that SOLRAD 1 has passed the FAC process, I have updated SOLRAD 2 to the same level of quality (I hope!) I hadn't planned on going past GA for SOLRAD 2, but thanks to a great new cite from User:Kees08, I was able to add a lot of interesting information, and it turns out SOLRAD 2 was pretty important even if it didn't actually make orbit. Since much of the text is identical to that of SOLRAD 1, a good deal of SOLRAD 2 has essentially already passed FA muster. The big differences are the lede and the Mission sections. Enjoy! --Neopeius (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No hurry, but if the folks who gave SOLRAD 1 a gander could take a look at SOLRAD 2 at their leisure, I'd be obliged. :)

--Neopeius (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
I'll do this one this evening (CET). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You're amazing! :) --Neopeius (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * over Cuba and instigating official protest from the Cuban government Unlink Cuba and capitalise government.
 * Why is Cuba unlinked? Also, having done some scouring, it appears that government is only capitalized when a proper noun.  For instance, the Government of Cuba but not Cuban Government.
 * Is it? Because I saw some editors using (including myself) government capitalised. May I ask you which ref you used it can help me about this issue. I always thought it was capitalised. Also I think Cuba should be unlinked because here in Europe they know some infomations of Cuba. Of course I do not know or Americans know where Cuba lies or some infomations of it - by MOS:OVERLINK.
 * I'd like to keep Cuba. I delinked China.  And | here's a source for decapped government.
 * Thanks for the ref. Sadly it is a dead link on my screen. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How vexing! Try here  --Neopeius (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for this information. Cheers.


 * In 1957 the Soviet Union began deploying Link Soviet Union.
 * 10-4


 * President Eisenhower approved full Link Eisenhower.
 * Right-o


 * I see two kinda USes the first in This allowed the US Air Force to plan its entrance as US. The second is in northwest of the U.S. Navy's Guantanamo Bay base as U.S..
 * Fixed


 * Eisenhower cancelled the project and implemented British cancelled.
 * Huh! Learn something every day (though I double-taked on that -- I thought you were saying the British canceled SOLRAD, and I was like, "That's kind of presumptuous of them!")


 * the complete solar spectrum.[9]:64–65[9]:5–6, 63[10] merge both 9 citations in one citation.
 * Ugh, yes. And fixed in SOLRAD 1, too.


 * of its predecessor, SOLRAD/GRAB 1[14], Suggest moving the citation outside the comma here.
 * For sure.


 * to observe the sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light If I'm not wrong then it should be "to observe the Sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light"
 * Absolutely


 * spherical and 51 cm in diameter No Imperial/US units?
 * Right again!


 * same scientific experiments (18kg versus 19kg) Same as above and there should be a space between a number and a unit.
 * Must you ALWAYS be right? :)


 * providing 6 watts of power Link watt.
 * Watt's that you say?


 * photometer mounted along the equator Link equator.
 * Okay.


 * light in the 1050-1050 Å wavelength I'm sorry if I don't understand this one. But why are there two 1050s? Also shouldn't it be "light in the 1,050–1,050 Å wavelength"?
 * Criminy. It's 1350.


 * broadcasting on the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz) Unlink S band there is one already used previously in the body. Also this MHz is the first one so please link it.
 * Actually, the sentence at the end of the first paragraph was superfluous once I added the other language, so I killed it. Moved the MHz link.


 * was sent on 108 MHz Unlink MHz.
 * Yawp


 * Some 20 kg No Imperial/US units?
 * Of course there are! (now...)


 * The Cuban Army post at Holguin Link Cuban Army.
 * We have a link for everything!


 * sealed sphere of some 40 pounds Do you mean the unit pound or the currency pound?
 * It's a quote... but what do you think? :) I don't think SOLRAD 2 carried money in it.  Nor does America use the pound.


 * was sold to the People's Republic of China Unlink People's Republic of China.
 * Why? I am genuinely confused -- why does the Soviet Union get a link but not Cuba or China?
 * China on the other hand is a popular country even childeren do know some infomations and where it lies so it shouldn't be linked - by MOS:OVERLINK


 * In response to the Cuban government protest --> "In response to the Cuban Government protest"
 * Again, internet research suggests government is not capitalized after an adjective.

Here you go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Excellent stuff, ! Thank you so much. :)  --Neopeius (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great I reckon this one is ready for my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

image review


 * All three diagrams would benefit from being scaled up
 * done


 * Suggest adding missing alt texts
 * done


 * Should use upright rather than fixed px size
 * done


 * File:SOLRAD1schematic.gif: if this is uncredited how do we know what the tagging should be? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's from | NRL's website and I changed the WikiCommons file to reflect that.
 * Thank you ! --Neopeius (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Balon Greyjoy
Nice to see you nominating another article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When you say that future SOLRAD flights were programmed to avoid Cuban flyover, are you referring to just during the launch, or the spacecraft's entire lifetime in orbit (I'm assuming it's the former)? I would make that clear, as I assume the satellite would otherwise make passes over Cuba eventually
 * Fixed, thank you.


 * In the background section, I would provide a quick intro about the SOLRAD/GRAB satellites being used to detect SAM radars, and then go into the background of the radar detection. I understand that you're trying to build a narrative about how the US eventually decided to used SIGINT/ELINT satellites, but I found myself asking "How does this tie in?" throughout the first paragraph, and I had the added benefit of knowing the general properties of the satellite.
 * I've drafted a better narrative, both in that paragraph and the following one. I don't want to lose detail, but I think it flows better now.


 * Not sure about this one (hopefully can get some feedback from other editors), but is it general practice to use the official Russian reporting names/numbering for SAMs, or the NATO reporting names? I admit that I'm biased towards the use of the NATO reporting names, but I think most readers of a US Air Force program would more likely recognize "SA-2" or "SA-2 Guideline" over "S-75" (my vote is just for "SA-2")
 * I'm not married to any convention. I don't think it should stall FA status, but if consensus is ever reached, I'm perfectly fine with someone changing it after the fact.


 * Do you have any details on the electronic reconnaissance aircraft that the Air Force was using? I think linking to the individual types of aircraft would be useful.
 * I do not.


 * I would either remove the part about the Air Force planning its entrance routes, or expand upon it. Right now, it comes across as only part of the story.  I think the significance of knowing the locations of enemy SAM sites is important enough, so my vote is to just remove it. If you wish to expand, indicate the use of the entrance routes that you are referring to (I'm assuming it was hypothetical entrance routes in case of hostilities breaking out).
 * I agree, and I have changed the wording accordingly.


 * I would change "but the information collected was not particularly detailed" to something that just states that the information couldn't be used to locate the SAM sites. I think any collection of SAM radar signals is not going to be detailed, in that you are just getting the rough EM wave characteristics and a line of bearing, but that can be used to locate the SAM site.
 * Better wording.

Had an inadvertant few days away. Back at it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would combine the first two sentences about the submarine antenna, and just say that Mayo developed an antenna that allowed submarines to detect the radar from anti-submarine aircraft
 * Fixed.


 * I would change "was given an official go-ahead" to something like "was approved." "Go-ahead" is a bit of a colloquialism
 * fixed


 * How significant was the news leak and what changed between Tattletale and Walnut? It doesn't make much sense that the program was cancelled and then immediately restarted, just with a different code name.
 * I moved the heightened security to make more sense -- basically, Ike canceled, and Walnut was the same project but with heightened security. I've elaborated.  Hope you like.


 * American launches aren't classified now either, just the payloads. I would clarify this a little more.
 * According to my sources, this is not the case. While news of launches might have leaked (it's hard to hide a rocket launch), the launches themselves were classified.  Prior to launches being classified, only payload contents were classified (and disguised by some cover, e.g. Discoverer and SOLRAD)


 * Remove "Fortunately" from the start of the sentence, as it's a subjective word.
 * Fortunately, I don't mind doing so. :)


 * Instead of saying "roughly a duplicate of," maybe us "similar to" and then list the differences. I think that makes it more clear that there were some differences from the beginning.
 * The problem is I don't know how the two differed. There is virtually no information to that regard.  They had the same equipment listed in the various sources but a difference in mass.  All of the SOLRADS were "similar to" each other, but SOLRADs 1 and 2 were very close.  Thus "roughly a duplicate of" is the verbal solution to the problem I came up with.


 * How delayed was the rocket launch, and how many glitches were there? I don't think the betting pool is necessarily indicative of how delayed it was; formal/informal wagering over the likelihood of a launch/takeoff/etc. is pretty common.
 * Insufficient data. Long enough that the lone source on the matter thought it noteworthy.
 * If you wish to include it, I would shorten it to just say they were taking bets; as it's not clear what $1-per-person means (my take is that each person bet a dollar on a given time, but that's not self-explanatory).
 * Done.


 * I would remove the italics on "did" and take out the sunny sky, as weather played no factor in the rocket's demise.
 * fixed


 * I would remove "However" before "the Thor first stage" as it's not an event that is contrasted with the previous sentence.
 * I like it, narratively. The rocket launched despite the holds.  The weather was good.  BUT THEN TRAGEDY STRUCK.  The "However" indicates something bad is about to happen.
 * I would argue that you don't want to be using foreshadowing-type terminology and phrasing in these articles to tell a narrative. Per WP:EDITORIALIZING, it's good to avoid words like "However" as that can imply a relationship when there is none. While the initial launch and clear weather were positive signs of a launch, they were pretty unrelated to the failure of the launch.
 * I think that's an overly assiduous interpretation of WP:EDITORIALIZING :) If this is the only difference of opinion on this article, I think we're in good shape!
 * I disagree, but one "however" isn't enough to dissuade my support for this article.


 * Similar to my comments about overflying Cuba, when you say that future SOLRAD flights were programmed, I'm assuming you mean for a launch? How would a launch flying south have a more northerly course?
 * Fixed. (and the launch never went DUE south.  Just south enough to fly over Cuba until the flight path was modified.)

That's all I have for now! Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the help! Please let me know what you think -- the changes I've made in the Background section, I can migrate to SOLRAD 1 to improve that article. --Neopeius (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies for forgetting to come back to this. I have added two comments. Nice work improving the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're a busy man. I'm just grateful for all of your help!  Are we good to go? --Neopeius (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Neopeius comments
Hi, folks! Thank you for your comments. I have jury duty this week, so I may not get around to addressing them immediately. I just wanted to let you know so you didn't think I was ignoring you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)  --Neopeius (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

SC (Support on May 16, 2019)
Thank you for visiting! :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A fair few bits and pieces to cover here:


 * Lead & IB
 * "and was destroyed, raining debris over Cuba and instigating official protest ..." and ...and looks like a bit of a run on. "and was destroyed, raining debris over Cuba, which instigated official protests ..." may work better (note plural: an official protest (singular) or "official protests" (plural)
 * Fixed.


 * I see you have a "start of mission" in the IB. Is there and "end of mission" or "outcome parameter that could be added?
 * Added a "Destroyed" parameter, thank you. :)


 * Background
 * "plan its entrance": "plan its possible (or) potential entrance"?
 * "In March 1958,[3]:4" I looked at this initially because I never like seeing a citation after only three words of a sentence. Perhaps moving this to the end of the second sentence (to sit alongside ref [2]:364 would work better)
 * "After a news leak": an approximate date would work well here, just for context. (Either here, or following "the project was restarted")
 * The two paras "After a news leak" and "The study of the Sun's" could be run together as they are essentially on the same point
 * I'd be tempted to scale up File:Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity.svg a little – it's not at all clear on such a small scale
 * "Martin Votaw": just a word or two of introduction would work wonders: "NRL engineer Martin Votaw" would give enough context
 * "Fortunately": it's a minor and petty thing, but that's NPOV. "Fortunate" according to who?


 * All of these issues are addressed by Balon Greyjoy above (great minds!) so I will fix them per his suggestions. This will necessitate fixing the language in SOLRAD 1, too.


 * Spacecraft
 * "GRAB 1,[14], spherical": no comma needed after the ref
 * Fixed.


 * "in diameter[8] slightly lighter": comma needed after diameter
 * Fixed.


 * "solar cells[4]:a1-4. The..." Full stop before the ref
 * Fixed


 * "the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz).[13]:29,32 over" Is that a full stop? If so, it should be a capital letter for "Over..."
 * Should have been a comma. Thank you. :)


 * Mission
 * "so many holds in the": this may be an AmEng thing, but my BrEng eye expects to see "hold-ups"
 * Hold is a term of art specifically dealing with launch holds. I believe my usage is correct.  (What I see Kees said below -- thank you, Guardian Angel!)


 * I think its more space vernacular than AmEng vs BrEng, 'The launch vehicle is in a built-in five minute hold' would be an acceptable usage for example.  Kees08  (Talk)   00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "SOLRAD 2 did launch": no need for the italics: "SOLRAD 2 launched" works much better
 * Fixed


 * "19:50 UTC[12]," comma before the ref
 * Fixed


 * "Some 20 kilograms (44 lb)[19]": Again a ref after a few words of a sentence. This citation supports the position that "some 20kg is equivalent to 44Lbs". If you want to connect the 20kg to the fragments that fell over Cuba, it needs to be at the end of the sentence. I'll also point out that when I look at http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19601205#!&pid=26, I don't see the article titled "Transit Launch Fails".
 * The reference cited is the only one that gives the mass of the debris. The problem is there's no way to put a citation in between numbers of a convert template.
 * I still have a problem with that citation. We don't need a citation for basic maths (we automate the process with a convert template most of the time), so it can come out. As the Avian Week link doesn't have an article titled "Transit Launch Fails", and the page contains no reference to 20kg it isn't needed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It absolutely does have a small piece called "Transit Launch Fails" on page 26. However, reading the article again, I think they are just citing what the Cuban report said, so I've eliminated the problematic reference and language, thank you.
 * Ah, that's a different link altogether - you should have ignored the http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19601205#!&pid=26 link and done the citation as a journal, linking to the specific page. Anyway, that's moot now it's been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Negatory. If you have an account, that link takes you right to that page. :)  I was lucky enough to get an account!  --Neopeius (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (I downloaded the page from AvWeek and hosted it on my own site so you could see it)


 * Sources etc
 * Is there a reason you are using ? The documentation says "This template should not be used unless necessary", so I wonder what makes it necessary here
 * You have a few instances of pages as " 142,149", without a space in between. Although you are partially consistent in not including a space, the addition of one works better, I think. (I saw partially as there are examples of the spaced "5–6, 63–65")


 * I have added spaces after commas both here and in SOLRAD 1. I use  to identify pages within particular references (rather than listing the same reference multiple times for different page numbers.  How else would I do the citation?
 * If you use the template it drops everything into the right place and bundles the same pages together in one number. It's partially a matter of personal choice (so I won't push it here), but the MoS advises not to use it "unless necessary", and I don't see the need here. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. I prefer rp to sfn is all. :)

No rush on these: I see you are on jury duty, so whenever you get round to this is great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your help, ! I will try to get to the other issues this weekend.  Busy week!   --Neopeius (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * --Neopeius (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - all good from me on prose. I am not a subject expert, so won't comment on the coverage, but it passes the FA criteria on prose grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Woohoo! Thank you :)

Image review - pass
All images are appropriately licensed.
 * Could you use "upright", not px, to size images. (DM 21)
 * Done.


 * Transit 2A and GRAB 1.jpg sandwiches the infobox. Maybe move it to the right, below the infobox, and drop Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity.svg down a little?
 * I'd rather not move the images. These are the same positions as in the FA-approved SOLRAD 1, and if I move them, they will no longer be in their relevant sections.  It's a big infobox.  There's not much I can do about it. :)
 * It sandwiches on this article because you have made all of the images (much) larger. If you revert them to the same size as the images in SOLRAD 1 the issue will probably go away.
 * But I was instructed by the other image reviewer that they should be bigger (actually, I wasn't even the one who made the images that much bigger...I just blew up the Votaw one, I think). Perhaps you could arrange the images as you feel appropriate and then let's see how it looks?  --Neopeius (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I have changed the images to the size they were for SOLRAD 1 and moved one. It is a little difficult to squeeze so many images into the article, but if there are to be six, this minimises sandwiching. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks worse IMO, but up to you two.  Kees08  (Talk)   18:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that it looks better, but that is neither here nor there. It is now, barely, MoS compliant, and so I can sign it off for FA. I am more than happy to consider any different array, so long as it is MOS compliant. I think that this is going to be difficult unless the number of images is reduced. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; you may want to have Nikkimaria check in on it since she had comments relating to image size earlier that are now overridden. I am pretty indifferent overall.  Kees08  (Talk)   18:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. So long as it stays MoS compliant I am happy to support. Feel free to play around to get the image arrangement, but remember that sandwiching is not allowed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * All images need alt text. (Even if it is the same as the caption.)
 * Added. I'll have to do that with SOLRAD 1, too.
 * For the record, it is optional to have alt text. Although it is good to have.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SOLRAD 1, yes. That's not how I read the MOS: "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users."
 * Most recent RfC says not required but should be encouraged. Also, if you do not sign the line that you ping someone they do not get the ping.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I was unable to find Thor Able Star with Transit 3A Nov 30 1960 pad.jpg at, which may have been me. In any case, it would be better to have a direct link.
 * I'm not certain what you're asking. ^^;;
 * I thought that I was going mad, because I missed Kees08's comment below. They have sorted it out. You owe them a beer. Thanks Kees.
 * I've now had an opportunity to see the new page, and I am compelled to say that I don't like it. I do very much appreciate your attempts to work with the MOS re: sandwiching.  That said, 1) it says "avoid sandwiching" not "sandwiching is not allowed" and, of course, there is the Break All Rules directive.


 * Moreover, 3) it looks better the old way and 4) the photos actually illustrate their points the old way and 5) SOLRAD 1 has it the old way, and it made F.A.


 * If you do not feel you can sign off on the images the old way, I understand, and I will see if Nikkimaria, who did the first image review (and did not mention sandwiching) will sign off. Thanks very much again! :)

--Neopeius (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Neopeius. In MOS:SANDWICH it says "However, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages or cha­rts that face each oth­er; or be­tween an im­age and in­fo­box, nav­i­ga­tion tem­plate, or sim­i­lar." I do not see how this can be read other than as to mean that an article with an image sandwich does not "meet[…] the policies regarding content", which I understand to be a requirement of featured article status. I don't consider WP:I don't like it to be sufficient reason to WP:Ignore all rules. Obviously, I am happy to be corrected on any of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * PS. It seems to me that the nub of the issue is the attempt to get six very large (four of them are upright=1.5) images into a 1,700 word article. They struggle to fit at the default size. Doubling this overloads the page. The obvious solution, other than reducing their size to the default setting, is to have fewer images. Just a suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to reduce the images to their default sizing, which is how SOLRAD 1 passed FA. I was specifically asked by another image reviewer to increase the size of the images (and, in fact, I believe they went and did it themselves).  And I was also specifically asked by prior reviewers to put in the pictures that are there, and I think they serve the article.


 * So, I am splitting the baby, reverting the uprighted big images back to normal (except for the launch image, which does not have the sandwich issue being well below all the other images) and I look forward to approval so we can put this to bed. :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

--Neopeius (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Neopeius. FWIW, I also think that all six images serve the article; note that I had made no prior mention of there being unnecessary images. I didn't know how you felt about them, so it seemed worth mentioning the idea. Personally I feel that the large images make the article look ugly and overwhelm the text, but that is irrelevant. No one cares about my sense of aesthetics. If anyone gets a vote on aesthetics, it is you; but, so far as I can see, only within the constraints of the FA criteria. I would have cheerfully signed off on the larger images if I could have seen a way to convince myself that they were within the MOS.


 * Currently there is, and will be on all platforms, a sandwich between Transit 2A and GRAB 1.jpg and the infobox. However, I am going to be Nelsonian and IAR. This is a great article, and much improves Wikipedia; I feel that, on balance, I can pass the image review in good conscience. Thank you for your flexibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I added the filename and a link to the direct image page.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you,  I am working my way through these backwards. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weekend chores catching up to me. Next pass will probably be Monday.  Thank you for your patience! --Neopeius (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No rush. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Just the sandwiching issue to resolve; which should be easy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review
Some sources points were raised and dealt with in the body of the review. I have a few further issues:
 * A limited series of spotchecks revealed no apparent problems with verifiability or close paraphrasing.
 * Ref 3 is missing publisher details
 * Fixed


 * Ref 8: I was unable to locate the source article in the link
 * It works if you have a login to AvWeek. One will have the same issue with all of my AvWeek links.


 * Ref 10: The title in the ref is given as "Appendix A: Department of the Navy History in Space". In the link, page 157 of the source reveals "Intelligence Satellite Development by the Naval Research Laboratory" Is this the intended source article?
 * Correct, and page 157 is indicated in the citation.


 * Ref 12: What makes "Jonathan's Space Report" a high quality reliable source?
 * He's been a space journalist for more than a decade, his master launch log is the gold standard, and I've yet to find any inaccuracies (as opposed to, say, Mark Wade's Astronautix site, which has lapsed)


 * Ref 16: The source title in the ref is "Vanguard: a History", by Constance Green and Milton Lomask, but no page references are given. The link is to Lindbergh's "Foreword": is this the sources article?
 * Page references are there as s after the citation.


 * Ref 19: What makes "Drew Ex-Machina" a high quality reliable source?
 * He's a reputable, long-time space journalist, and when I've checked his work with his sources, he's been reliable.


 * Formats: I notice an inconsistency in the presentation of authors' names. For example, we have (ref 2) "James Bamford", and (ref 3) "McDonald, Robert A.". There are other examples of both forms. I suggest consistency is applied using one format.
 * It's what comes of using templated names versus just the author= field. Fixed so they're all last name first.

Subject to the exceptions raised above, the sources appear to meet the requirements of the FA criteria with regard to quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the source check! :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kees08

 * Could use this newspaper if you want; I was not sure how often they flew over Cuba before, looks like this was only the second attempt (in case it is useful: One, Two
 * Added.


 * Acronym not introduced while the NRL was heavily involved
 * Fixed.


 * Should there be a comma after engineer for the appositive phrase? Reid D. Mayo, a Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) engineer determined
 * Yes, but that sentence sucks for clunkiness. Fixed. :)

More to come later.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this like the 100 meter dash, where even though there are 100 meters, since it is describing something it is singular? It sounds weird to me that centimeters is plural four whip-style 63.5 centimeters (2.08 ft) long antennas
 * It is weird, but it's an artifact of the convert template...

Sure.
 * I would link range safety officer instead of range safety, which I know redirects to range safety, but if the range safety officer article is ever made the link will go to the right page. the range safety officer.
 * As a launch vehicle nerd, I think it would be good to get into the fact that the first and second stages were separated, and range safety blew up both of them. I was picturing one vehicle when I was imagining the scenario (from this source).
 * Added


 * I think you should also add that a formal complaint was made to the United Nations, because I was specifically looking for that detail (maybe the last paragraph of that section?)
 * Added.

That's all I have right now, I am going to poke around a little more and see if I can find any more sources, but I'll likely support soon.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Done! W00tiew00t and thanks. :)    --Neopeius (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support granted; I made a change to the destruction of the rocket, let me know if you have an issue with it.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary
As of today, we're at four supports and completed image and source review (i.e. I have addressed all issues)

Is there anything left to do before elevation? I'd like to get this wrapped up so I can apply the changes to this article back to SOLRAD 1 before it hits the front page on June 22 :) Then I can go forward and finish the other SOLRADs.

Thanks to, , , , , , and for your invaluable help! --Neopeius (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sadly, the image review is not yet signed off. See "Just the sandwiching issue to resolve; which should be easy" above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Image review issue now resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And now it is resolved again, in the spirit of Wikipedia and with my thanks to the nominator for their flexibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Aw, garsh. Just tryin' to make this thing work.

Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)