Template:Did you know nominations/Kosmos 1408
- 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: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Article is currently a bolded link on In the news and thus is no longer eligible for DYK.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Kosmos 1408
- ... that a Russian anti-satellite weapons test destroyed Kosmos 1408, generating thousands of pieces of debris that threatened the International Space Station? Source: The Guardian, see other refs in article
Created by Mike Peel (talk). Self-nominated at 07:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC).
- Hi Mike Peel, review follows: article created 16 November; article is well written and the main text is cited to what appear to be reliable sources for the subject; I didn't spot any issues with overly close paraphrasing from a sample of the sources; article exceeds minimum length; a QPQ has been carried out. I have a couple of outstanding queries:
- The following items from the infobox are not cited there or mentioned in the main text:
- That "Yuzhmash" was the contractor
- That it was launched from "Site 32/2"
- That the launch time was "4:55 UTC"
- That the manufacturer was "Yuzhnoye"
- That its intention was "Electronic and Signals Intelligence/ELINT" (mentioned also in the lead)
- The article and source support that 1,500 fragments were generated (as these are being tracked) but only "likely" that thousands of others were generated. As such I don't think this supports a hook stating plainly that it generated "thousands of pieces of debris". I think an alternative wording ("hundreds" or "at least 1,500") would be needed
- The following items from the infobox are not cited there or mentioned in the main text:
- If you could let me know your thoughts - Dumelow (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Hundreds" or "at least 1500" are both understating the impact, even "thousands" is too low. 1500 objects are large enough to track. Hundreds of thousands of smaller objects are expected, as reported by almost all sources. Somehow the Guardian misreported that as "hundreds". space.com, reuters, BBC, CNN, ... I think we can write hundreds of thousands. That's what the sources report, excluding the Guardian. --mfb (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Dumelow: Thanks for the review, but it seems that this is now linked to in Wikipedia:In the news (wasn't expecting that), which I think makes it ineligible to also be a DYK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- The issues you raised have now been fixed, BTW: info is either in the body of the article with references, or removed from the infoboxes. 'thousands' does seem like the right wording - although probably an underestimate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Hundreds" or "at least 1500" are both understating the impact, even "thousands" is too low. 1500 objects are large enough to track. Hundreds of thousands of smaller objects are expected, as reported by almost all sources. Somehow the Guardian misreported that as "hundreds". space.com, reuters, BBC, CNN, ... I think we can write hundreds of thousands. That's what the sources report, excluding the Guardian. --mfb (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
