Talk:Proton (satellite program)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

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

• 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

• 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)

@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)

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

@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)

@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)

@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)

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.