Talk:LES-1

Submitting for GA for the DYK factor -- I love probes that turn themselves back on 50 years down the line... :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:LES-1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is too short, probably needs a threefold expansion.

No problem. Let me know what you think.

• You could, for instance, state a few of the "then-advanced technologies".
• And that there was a successor (judging by the infobox)?

Got it.

• Infobox details:
  • Where is 1965-008C ref'ed?
  • Where is mass referenced?
  • Where are all the oribtal parameters referenced?

I've added an NSSDC cite earlier on to hopefully make it clear. Rather than have an individual citation for each entry, I put the appropriate citation at the end of each group of parameters found at a source.

• • Why is LES in italics?

How should I know? I just work here... :)

• Could link downlink.

Done.

• Also consider linking Error detection and correction for "error-checking techniques."?

Done.

• "comsats" do you mean communication satellites?

Whoops. :)

• You link MHz, so you could link watt.

Watt's that, you say?

• "Titan-IIIA #3[1]" avoid use of hash to mean "number" (per MOS:HASH)

I have learned something new!

• Caption is a complete sentence so needs a period.

Interesting. I suppose that's technically true. (Am I saying that LES-1 was launched or am I describing what the picture shows?)

• What is G3YPQ?

Clarified. The dangers of revising an article rather than starting completely from scratch.

• Ref 3 - 1007? Accessdate?

Interesting. I didn't realize book citations allowed the access-date parameter. It's available on-line, but I also have a physical copy.

• Ref 5 is huge, needs page number.

They were there, in rp like all the other sources, but since I only cite it once, I put it in the citation proper. I don't know if that kind of inconsistency is cricket, though.

• Ref 6 - publisher? accessdate?

Added publisher -- accessdate was there.

• Ref 7 - formatting issue.

fixed

• "Current Orbital information for LES-1." no need for capital O.

Makes it feel important.

• Are there any other categories which could apply here? E.g. 1965 in the United States? Any other spaceflight cats?

Added.

That's it for now. On hold. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Neopeius I'll give this until 22 April when I'll fail it if there's no response forthcoming. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Thank you for your review. I only just saw this (now that you've pinged me :) ) I will work on it this week. --Neopeius (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I have made all suggested revisions. :) --Neopeius (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Neopeius just a few more things:

• The para starting "After the successful development ..." has no reference.

It *does*. It's the one at the end of the next paragraph. But I can see the confusion so I cited both with the same reference.

• "t 15:19:05 UT[2] on a test f" could move that awkwardly placed ref at the end of the sentence.

So, the reason that reference is there is it only pertains to the time of launch. The rest of it is covered by the subsequent citation. If you know a more artful way to do such things (multiple references at end of a sentence?) I'm happy to oblige.

• "Legacy and Status" -> Legacy and status" per WP:HEAD.

I will Stop randomly Capitalizing. It is an Artifact of my Copywriting Career.

The rest looks in order. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! The Rambling Man These Good Reviews are super important because I generally write an acceptable history section first for a single satellite of a series, and if it passes muster, I just cut and paste it for others in the series and usually adapt it for the overarcing article. So thanks again, both for the help and for the opportunity to meet a new fellow space person. --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Good to go. Thanks for your kind words and great work. I'm happy with the article for GA (I made a couple of tweaks so please check I didn't break anything), so I'm promoting. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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) 06:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1965 comsat LES-1 spontaneously began transmitting again in 2013 after 40+ years of silence, making it one of the oldest zombie satellites? Source: https://www.dd1us.de/spacesounds%204b.html

How about this source (also in the article -- it makes clear that it began again rather than simply being undiscovered. Are multiple sources allowed? I mean, the DYK is for the article as a whole, not for a cited article )https://web.archive.org/web/20150803025544/http://www.southgatearc.org/news/february2013/radio_archeology.htm --Neopeius (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Expanded to Good Article by Neopeius (talk). Self-nominated at 15:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

• General eligibility:

• New enough: - This hook was nominated on 7 May, 15 days after the article was promoted to GA on 22 April. Not within the 7 day timeframe.

I hope you will be tolerant. This is something I meant to get to, but the difficulty of recent days has made me somewhat less efficient with my time. --Neopeius (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - The sentence "Phil said its remarkable to think that electronics built nearly 50 years ago, 12 years before Voyager 1, and long before microprocessors and integrated circuits, is still capable of working in the hostile environs of space." is directly copied form the source

Good catch -- that's one of the few lines remaining from the original iteration of the article (not mine) -- I have deleted the offending, superfluous sentence. --Neopeius (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - The hook's statement "making it one of the oldest zombie satellites" is not actually in the article, zombie satellite is only mentioned under "See also". The reference used does not mention zombie satellite and I can't find anything about "making it one of the oldest" either in the source. Finally, the statement "spontaneously began transmitting again in 2013 after 40+ years of silence" isn't quite supported either, the source just states "Transmissions of LES-1 were discovered 47 years after its launch". It could have transmitted in between, just that nobody detected it.

Excellent points. I have improved the article accordingly. --Neopeius (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Calistemon (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Calistemon --Neopeius (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Neopeius I'm not sure it is up to me to decide whether to be lenient on the 7-day requirement. I think, you should ping one of the regulars at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK participants. If they are ok with it I'm certainly not going to knock this hook back on that ground. I see you have added the missing statements from the hook to the article and referenced them. The references do support the hook now. The plagiarism introduced by another editor has also been removed. The nomination is now in much better shape than it was, just the time requirement needs to be cleared up, from my point. I enjoyed reading the article and the hook is certainly catchy. Calistemon (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Calistemon! Amberrock Casliber Daniel Case Dr. Howard Dr. Fine Dr. Howard :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Gatoclass Mifter --Neopeius (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski The Interior Ucucha ONUnicorn --Neopeius (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to be a bit lenient here - 15 days is double our limit, but this is (as far as I can tell), the third nomination by the user. If it were a more experienced nominator, I don't think I'd be so lenient. Bear in mind, we do have a big ol' backlog, so it's possible others won't agree Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Lee Vilenski -- yes, this is #3, and I haven't done a DYK for a year. --Neopeius (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to be lenient on the time frame. Given that just about everyone world wide has had their time impacted by the virus in some way, and things are just weird and confusing right now, I'd be fine with ignoring that rule in this instance. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And how! :) Thanks so much, ONUnicorn --Neopeius (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

On the basis of above discussions, here is a new review from my side:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: There is some consensus in the replies above that the late nomination for DYK can be overlooked. Therefore, the article is good to go from my end, Neopeius has addressed and fixed all the queries I raised. Calistemon (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Corrected year to 2012 when promoting this hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)