Talk:Proton (satellite program)

Proton (satellite program) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 4, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 5, 2021.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Proton 3, launched on 24 March 1966, was one of the first satellites equipped to look for quarks?

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Proton (satellite program)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 07:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PASSED

This article has passed its GA nomination --DannyS712 (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes[edit]

General
1. The title is a bit confusing, since the article is about multiple satellites rather than a single "Proton satellite"
  I think you're right. I can move it to "Proton (satellite program)" to mirror Electron (satellite program)
Lede
1. Orbited 1965-68, three on test flights of the UR-500 ICBM and one on a Proton-K rocket, all four completed their missions successfully, the last reentering in 1969. - sentence doesn't have a clear subject. What orbited? And orbited around what?
  Addressed
Background
1. The Proton satellites were heavy... - why is "proton" in bold? It is already bolded in the lede
  Fixed.
2. These satellites, made from purpose-built third stages... - not really sure what this means. They only had a third stage? Third stages of what? Please clarify
  I agree. I think I've made the language less clunky.
Spacecraft design
1. ...with a scientific package developed under the supervision... - they had the same single package? Suggest "with scientific packages"
  That's fair. Fixed.
2. The entire package massed 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) was composed... - this is confusing. Suggest adding commas around the "massed 4,000 kg (8,800 lb)" or some other tool to split the two ideas of the sentences (the mass, and what the package was composed of)
  That sentence got messed up somehow. I've moved half of it up a paragraph where it makes more sense.
3. A measuring device comprising one lump of carbon and another of polyethylene... - the measuring device was likely comprised of the coal and polyethylene
  Comprise is used correctly here. If I were to construct it as you recommend, I'd say "composed of"
Missions
1. Proton 1 was orbited and Proton 3 was successfully orbited - the satellites orbited something (earth?) I assume, rather than the satellites themselves being orbited
2. ...and the satellite reentered 11 October 1965 and similar descriptions for the other three satellites - reentered what?
  Generally, in space articles, orbited and reentered are verbs that don't need elaboration, but I've done so anyway, at your suggestion. :)
  Only some of the reentered were switched, leading to inconsistent phrasing. While Proton 4 has "reentered Earth's atmosphere", 2 and 3 just say "reentered"
  By George, you're right! Fixed.

Discussion[edit]

I have marked this GA nomination as "on hold" pending resolution of the few issues I raised above. @Neopeius: fyi. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Thank you kindly for getting to this GA so quickly. I am nursing tendinitis so I will make your suggested changes early next week and ping you when they are done. :) Happy New Year! --Neopeius (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Changes made. Thanks again! --Neopeius (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius looks like I've been misusing "comprised of" for years... thanks for pointing that out. One remaining issue with the different phrasing for "reentered" --DannyS712 (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Don't feel bad. "Comprised of" is so common that it's now become acceptable, and only pedants like me get our dander up about it. But since "composed" always has that meaning and can't be used the way "comprised" can, it makes sense to maintain the distinction where possible! --Neopeius (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Well, it was nice working with you on this. Happy to declare the GA nomination passed! DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Joofjoof (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Proton 1/2 satellite before launch

... that Proton 3, launched 24 Mar 1966, was one of the first satellites equipped to look for the quark? (The Encyclopedia of Soviet Spacecraft, Douglas M. Hart, OCLC=17249881, 1987, pages=82–83)
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Reviewed: Not needed (have listed 5 DYKs, done 2, and get 5 free. :) )

Improved to Good Article status by Neopeius (talk). Self-nominated at 00:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Y Article is long enough (4876 characters), is a GA, nominated in time (became GA on 4 January, nominated 5 January), and article is within policy
Y Hook is short enough, interesting, in the article, and well cited
Y As the user did a review for this previous DYK nomination, they are still within their 5 QPQ-free articles. So QPQ exempt
Y Image is public domain, so freely licenced, looks good at low resolution, and is used in the article
Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

italics or not[edit]

There seems to be inconsistency in whether the specific Protons, e.g. Proton 3 (on the main page right now) should be in italics or not. This article uses both formats (which is a little concerning given it's a GA!) What's the right answer? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why I did italics in the infobox or why it wasn't caught in GA review. :) Thanks for catching. I made them regular. @The Rambling Man: --Neopeius (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I often get confused as to whether satellites and/or space probes are treated the same as ships, hence the question. Thanks for fixing it so quickly. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]