Talk:Sputnik 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Conflicting Data (Completed Orbits)[edit]

Up on the top of the page it says that Sputnik completed 1350 orbits before decaying. Lower down in the page in the Launch and Mission Section it's written that there were 1440 completed orbits.

It is not really known how long Sputnik remained in orbit. After the easily-visible rocket stage fell, the extremely faint satellite itself was difficult to visually track. The Soviets lost track of it after 1440 orbits and declared it was gone, but radio ionization tracking indicated that it remained in orbit for quite a while after that. DonPMitchell (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sputnik 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Italics[edit]

There seems to be some confusion as to the proper formatting of the name. Most occurrences in this article are in normal type, but some are italicized. Which is correct?--Khajidha (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Khajidha: I think that it should be italicized according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Titles. See MOS:T Section 1.2. Names of ships, including spaceships, should be italicized. PopularOutcast talk2me 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kees08, should mentions of Sputnik and Sputnik 1 be in italics? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Sputnik 1 should be in italics. When referring to the Sputnik rocket, Sputnik should not be italicized. When referring to the Sputnik satellite program, it should not be italicized. When referring to Sputnik 1 (or any of the others), and shortened to Sputnik, it should be italicized. Kees08 (Talk) 01:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

GA work[edit]

@Ethanpet113: The article is a bit far from GA as it is; the cleanup tag notwithstanding, there are a lot of paragraphs that are uncited. I recommend you try to get them cited before someone picks up the review, or else it might fail a little quickly. Kees08 (Talk) 08:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sputnik 1/GA1. 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 @Ethanpet113:! 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 Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"See also" section; 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)
@Jens Lallensack:
  • 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)
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)#Strap-on?
  • 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)

@Jens Lallensack and Ethanpet113: 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)

@Kees08: 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)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: 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[edit]

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)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: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.@Kees08: 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 @Jens Lallensack: 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)
@Jens Lallensack: 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)
@Kees08: 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)


@Jens Lallensack: 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)
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 Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you knowDYK comment symbol nomination

This review is transcluded from Template:Did you know nominations/Sputnik 1. You may review or comment on the nomination by clicking here.

Sputnik 1

A replica of Sputnik 1
A replica of Sputnik 1

Improved to Good Article status by Kees08 (talk). Nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) at 21:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg GA, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citations check out (ALT0, with offline sources, accepted AGF), QPQ done, image appropriately licensed. Kees08 and Coffeeandcrumbs, seems like there's some close paraphrasing here, here. here, and here. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    Rephrased 1, 2, and 4. I do not think I can change the wording of the small match in 3. Let me know if you believe additional work is required. Kees08 (Talk) 04:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Usernameunique:. Thanks. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, there seem to be some additional minor issues here, here, here, here, and here. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: I think this should be good now. See [1]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg All set now. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Could you also review this blurb? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation style[edit]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I find the current citation style really hard to work with; would you be amenable to changing it to either sfn, harvnb, or similar? I think sfn is the simplest of those types personally, but I am sure not all agree. Kees08 (Talk) 07:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Choose which ever you like. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sputnik_1&oldid=919685070"