Template:Did you know nominations/Molniya orbit

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) 05:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Molniya orbit

(

)

~~... that a Molniya orbit used by American spy satellites?~~ The use of a Molniya orbit for the NROL-35 mission suggest that the spacecraft was the first member of a new series of highly elliptical orbit (HEO) signals intelligence (SIGINT) satellites, a series that began with the Jumpseat satellites launched aboard Titan IIIB rockets in the 1970s and 1980s.[1]

*ALT1: ... that a Molniya orbit has been used by Russian and American spy satellites since the 1960s?

ALT2: ... that a Molniya orbit, invented by the Soviets, has been used by both Russian and American spy satellites?
ALT3: ... that a Molniya orbit, is used by "classified" Russian and American satellites?
ALT4: ~~... that a Molniya orbit is used by classified Russian and American satellites?~~

Improved to Good Article status by Spacepine (talk). Self-nominated at 13:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC).

Newly promoted to GA status, long enough, and within policy. QPQ isn't needed as this is Spacepine's first DYK. My main concern is with the hook, which is very short and somewhat one-sided. @Spacepine: can I encourage you to expand it a bit, perhaps to mention the Soviet/Russian satellites that used it since the 1960s? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, was trying to keep it well sourced since I don't have info about recent Russian spy satellites. How's this new op look? --Spacepine (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spacepine: The new hook is better, but it now implies that the Americans have been using it since the 1960s. Maybe something along the lines of "... orbit, first used by the Soviet Molniya satellites in the 1960s, is now used by American ..." might work? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Trying to keep it concise - I prefer short hooks. Removed 60s detail in new op --Spacepine (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

That looks good to me, thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but it seems to me that the hook is stating information that is not known for sure. Just because a project is classified doesn't make it a spy satellite. Please adjust the hook wording to suggest that it's probable, or suggest another hook. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair, how's this? Spacepine (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Spacepine and Yoninah: I've tidied up the formatting of the new hook, hope that helps. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

cheers, looks good Spacepine (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Spacepine: Actually, I think it's suggesting something that isn't there. Information about the satellites is classified, not the satellites themselves. Perhaps you can stop thinking about spy stuff and suggest a different hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm confident that it's suggesting something that is, indeed, there.

Happy to have the wording changed to 'military satellites', 'satellites of military use' or 'Russian and American satellites, information about which is classified' for stricter accuracy (if not clarity). Spacepine (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Spacepine: could you add some of its uses to the lead? I see television, telecommunications, military communications, weather monitoring, and early-warning satellites scattered all over the article. I don't see American military satellites unless I click into the links; perhaps add the word "military" to these descriptions. Sorry for the hassle, but DYKs are scrutinized by main page editors who want all the facts clearly stated and sourced. Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, updated lede Spacepine (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Spacepine: thank you for adding that extra paragraph to the lead. It really helps the reader! Now, back to the hook. All I see in the article is mention of its use by "Russian military communication satellites". I don't see anything about "American military satellites". Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Jumpseat and Trumpet are military. Clarified in article Spacepine (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. OK, I see Russian military communication satellites, and American military satellites. Could we write the hook this way?
ALT4a: ~~... that a Molniya orbit is used by Russian and American military satellites?~~ Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, alt4a works Spacepine (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to give the tick since Yoninah suggested ALT4a but then I realized the grammar does not make sense. All the satellites can't possibly use the same Molniya orbit. May I suggest one of the following:

ALT5a: ~~... that the Molniya orbit is used by Russian and American military satellites?~~
ALT5b: ~~... that some Russian and American military satellites use Molniya orbits?~~

@Yoninah: if Spacepine does not object I think you can review and hopefully approve my hooks. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Coffee, I prefer 5a Spacepine (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: since you just changed an "a" to a "the", please go ahead and approve ALT5a. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs, Spacepine, and Yoninah: Um, if you talk about "the" orbit then it's singular, if you talk about "a" (or better, "an") orbit then it's one of many. I think you've gone the opposite way from your intention! Saying "orbits" is much clearer. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Here is another tweak:
ALT5c: ... that Molniya orbits are used by Russian and American military satellites? Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's go with ALT5c. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)