# Talk:Initial Defense Communications Satellite Program

This review is transcluded from Talk:Initial Defense Communications Satellite Program/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 19:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much!
Comments
Initial Defense Satellite Communications System is in bold indicating that it points to this article, but it doesn't; it points to Defense Satellite Communications System.
Where do you see that?
In the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I fixed the redirect. ALso, I never really knew why the article title was bolded. I did it out of habit. Still learning after all this time.
Should that article be the main article of this one?
I currently have this article linked from that one ("main article here" link)
Sure, but you could put a main article hatnote at the top of this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I see. Okay, I added a Main hat and got rid of the See Also, thank you.
MOS:BOLD: The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Also: it says that 34 satellites were built, but 35 are listed here.
I'm not sure why some sources say 34 satellites were built unless they're not counting IDSCP 19/PANS -- I count it because nothing I've found says it wasn't an IDSCP commsat (and it has an IDSCP name, as opposed to GGSE, which doesn't and wasn't)
No need for quotes around Defense Communications Satellite Program.
fixed
Link Titan IIIC on first use.
fixed
"at least one satellite of the constellation would always visible" should be "at least one satellite of the constellation would always be visible"
fixed
"IDCSP satellites were spin-stabilized 26 sided polygons" should be "IDCSP satellites were spin-stabilized, 26-sided polygons"
fixed
You should mention that Advent was cancelled in favour of IDSCP.
I don't have a source on that. What I have that IDSCP was commissioned because Courier and Advent were too complicated.
Link teletype.
fixed.
Reference required for last sentence of "design"
fixed.
"sucessfully" should be "successfully"
fixed.
"Nha Tran" should be "Nha Trang".
For Nha Trang, you link the airbase, but not for Saigon (Tan Son Nhut Air Base).
fixed.
Link South Vietnam. Many readers will not know that Saigon was the capital, since it has been renamed and the country does not exist any more. Consider re-wording this.
"six year lifespan" -> "six-year lifespan"
Robert Earl Bird. Minor problem here: It is a Masters thesis and WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
I'd like to keep it. It is well sourced, was checked out often from the library (so the Academy thought it authoritative enough to be reference material) and it's more accurate than NSSDC, which is sourced without question.
Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
"Communicating by satellite" -> "Communicating by Satellite"
fixed.
Beyond the Ionosophere: Fifty Years of Satellite Communication Include the authors and contribution info David N. Spires and Rick W. Sturdevant, "From Advent to Milstar: The U.S. Air Force and the Challenges of Military Satellite Communications"
What fields should I use for those?
Like this: {{cite book |first1=David N. |last1=Spires |first2=Rick W. |last2=Sturdevant |contribution=From Advent to Milstar: The U.S. Air Force and the Challenges of Military Satellite Communications |title=Beyond the Ionosphere: Fifty Years of Satellite Communication|editor-first=Andrew J. |editor-last=Butica|publisher=NASA|location=Washington D.C.|date=1997|id=SP-4217|url=https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4217/sp4217.htm|pages=68–69, 83}} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Much obliged.
You can link to https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4217/sp4217.htm
fixed.
Gunter Krebs: publisher required.
fixed.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Fixed most things. A few questions.

Responded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7:I think we're done! Thanks very much. I hope you enjoyed. It's always nice to cover new ground on WP and deal with a swath of red links at once. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Article is short but addresses all aspects of the topic
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
I would have used the colour photo in the infobox
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Images are appropriately licensed; I altered the licences and categories
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I thought you'd be happy to see that the article has been significantly upgraded now that I've found more information the program's origin. I've addressed your suggestion that ADVENT be discussed. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)