# Talk:Elektron (satellite program)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elektron (satellite program)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 05:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Will look at the article over the next few days.
Amitchell125 Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


### Assessment
#### Lead section
Link atmospheric conditions (Atmosphere of Earth).	
Done
Is 'Elektron' a satellite or a multiple-satellite program? I'm not clear how it can be both. Consider that the title of the article be changed to 'Elektron (satellites)' or 'Elektron (satellite program)'.	
Moved to Elektron (satellite program)
Moved without a period for consultation, but I don't think it matters as the change was not controversial. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Such has been my 'modus operandi' when they're articles I've created in the first place (and the change is trivial). :) --Neopeius (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the need for the hyphen in multiple-satellite.	
deleted
...several-month lifespan… - you need to be more specific here, and include the actual operational period in the main body. See my comment in Mission section for the dates involved. 	
I just got rid of the mention of lifespan. I put it in detail lower in the article. --Neopeius (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
'Elektron' is also referred to as Electron (e.g. by NASA here) and this needs to be included in this section.
Done
The summaries for the images in Wikicommons come from here.
Added references (the cite was already in the article, so that works out -- actually, I can also add that url as part of the citation now; I'd used a scanned book from my personal collection.)
…radiation… -   consider amending to '...radiation from space...' (assuming I am correct).	
Radiation 'in' space :)
The bottom of the infobox just says 'Elektron', with 2 references - not needed?
Not needed.
The lead section is not yet a 'summary of its most important contents', e.g. consider including: the satellites were launched in pairs, that there were two identical pairs launched with identical experimental packages, that two satellites no longer orbit Earth.		
Try it now. Taking a break. Will move on. --Neopeius (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


#### History
Link Soviet; inclinations (Orbital inclination); Vostok rocket (not just Vostok).
Done.
Move  the link for Van Allen radiation belts to its first occurrence in the paragraph.
Done.
Link cosmic rays; galactic radio emissions (Radio); magnetic fields; micrometeoroid; nuclear tests (Nuclear weapons testing); ratification.
Done.
...micrometeoroid flux. Is the term flux used here in the same way as Flux ('the rate of transfer of particles through a unit area')? If so, it can be linked.
Done.
...the Elektrons. - amend to 'the Elektron satellites.'.
Done.
(60 degrees vs. 30 degrees latitude) - this needs to be explained more fully to readers.
done
What does radio propagation mean here?	
Clarified
The decree dates from reference 1 (May 1960 and 1961) needs to be included.	
See below.
I'm not sure that p. 240 is the right page for verifying the text that precedes reference 3. In an interesting section of the book, the 'Big Space Plan' is discussed from p. 236-242, but reading it though, there's only one mention of Elektron (on. 240), which only notes that it was included as a point in the plan.	
Separated into two paragraphs, the first relating what's in the Siddiqi, the other what's in Astronautix.
Reference 5 verifies what TASS reported about the mission on 2 Feb 1964, not about the design features of the satellites and their payloads. What TASS reported could be good to add in the Missions section, though.
I just killed that whole sentence that ultimately was redundant once I found more information on the experiments.
Page number (p. 162) required for reference 6.
Added.
Done with this section. Thank you. --Neopeius (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


#### Spacecraft design
Link eccentric (Orbital eccentricity); solar panels (Solar panels on spacecraft); semiconductor; galactic radio-noise (Cosmic noise).	
Done.
20 m^2 - needs editing where it occurs  (to m2) and converting to 'sq ft' ('20 square metres (220 sq ft)').	
Done.
Avoid 1/3 and 2/4 which could be mistaken for the fractions (e.g. 
  
    
      
        
          
            2
            4
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle {\frac {2}{4}}}
  
) - several occurrences within the text.
Fixed.
...ultimately massed… - 'ultimately had a mass of…'. (several occurrences within the text).
Done
They were cylindrical with six solar panels with a combined area of 20 m^2 for power generation. - Ref 1 doesn't appear to mention any of the information in this sentence. However, the information can be found in Corliss (Reference 7), so this needs sorting.	
Fixed.
Link perigee; kgf (Kilogram-force).
Done with this section, thank you. --Neopeius (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


#### Missions
Link shock wave; turbulent.	
Done (linked the former to Bow Shock)
Per the Soviet news agency, TASS,… - amend to 'According to  the Soviet news agency TASS,…'.	
I killed this sentence -- it's redundant now that I have better operational dates.
...completed 6. it's normal practice to use words for numbers up to ten.
Ditto.
The values for Elektron 1's apogee are given twice, but they don't match;  ditto Elektron 2's perigee values.	
I ended up just using SP-133 for everything. NSSDC has one parameter that's obviously wrong and no way to tell what period they are snapshotting. SP-133's data is clearly close to initial values. I also arranged the information more compellingly.
Reference 6 (p. 162) describes how the different orbits were achieved by the satellites that were launched together - consider adding this information.
Unfortunately, that page is no longer available to me. Can you add this information?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Include that they were launched "without much fanfare", according to p. 152 of Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1964.
I disagree with Dr. Sheldon's opinion. Define fanfare. :)
Actually, looking again, I disagree too, sofanfare doesn't matter now. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The caption should really read ...Elektron 2 and Elektron 4….	
Changed for economy and consistency to Elektrons 2 and 4 (ditto 1 and 3).
I have produced an SVG version of the orbits diagram, at [1], to replace the current one. It includes the direction of the magnetic field lines, normally included in all similar such diagrams.	Worth replacing the current image?
I love it! Tell me if you like the new caption.
Caption is now better, glad you like the diagram. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
...were still operating as of 6 February 1964. - Ref 9 states (in incorrect English) that: " ...Elektron-2 (observations from February to April 1964) it is 0.2, for Elektron-4, whose observation period runs from July to November 1964…". Use this information to be more specific about the time in which these satellites were active. The lead section should also be amended to reflect this information.
I've updated these entries.
All of the Elektrons were launched in pairs into orbit via Vostok 8K72K rocket - to improve the prose, consider amending to 'The Elektron satellites were launched in pairs using the Vostok 8K72K carrier rocket.'.
The first paragraph in this section is only one sentence long, which normally discouraged at GA. I would include with it that they were all launched from  Launch Complex 1 at Baikonur Space Center, and remove the 'Mission 1' and 'Mission 2' subtitles.
I actually like the subtitles -- instead, I killed the first sentence and incorporate the information in the body.
Use this (or something similar) to connect the name NIIP-5 (used to identify the site from which the satellites were launched in reference 10) with its later name, Baikonur (used in the article).
Done, thank you.
Done with this section. Whew! --Neopeius (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


#### Legacy and status
Link hydrogen; carbon; oxygen; ions.	
Done.
...operated for several months,… - this is vague, you should give the date when the satellites stopped operating (see above).	
I just got rid of it now that it's covered better earlier.
...supported many technical papers… - avoid many.
Made more accurate.
Two peacock words in this section that shouldn't be in the text: many; considerable.	
The Elektron satellites operated for several months,… - no need to repeat this here, as it is already covered in the Missions section.	
Exactly :)
Use Template:Convert to change 3000km into miles.	
Done.
Reference 22 (used twice) has a different citation style for the page numbers, but the style needs to be consistent throughout the article.
I think that's the only reference where I have two different highly disparate page numbers. I hate doing the same source twice, preferring to rp them. Do you have a suggestion?
Probably to leave it alone! Amitchell125 (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Done with this section. Home stretch! --Neopeius (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


#### References
Link Siddiqi to this.	
Done.
Link Gatland to this.	
No longer a reference...and WOW, the archive just takes what it wants, doesn't it?
Yep, but it's used a lot by Wikipedians. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Link Corliss to this. Also, link William R. Corliss.	
Done
Combine the references to Corliss with a page range pp. 711-713 (there's not a lot of text to find, so the multiple page reference is fine).	
Fixed
Link Jonathan McDowell (refs 10 & 24).
Done -- I had to change first and last to just name in terms of field.
Be consistent about  NASA or the full name (no need for the latter).
Done.
Ref 16 looks like only p. 259 is needed, not pp. 259-. If I am wrong, please include the exact pages for the citation.	
Fixed, but I also killed that citation anway
Add a (subscription required) template to reference 18.
Done
Include the pages (p. 3 for reference 19, p.1 for reference 20) The exact dates for the operational dates of all of the satellites appear to be stated within these sources, and I think this information should be included in the article.	
Done for all three, though rp's for such short references seems a bit superfluous.
Done.


#### External links
Add the link to tracking information from N2YO.com about Elektron 1 and associated debris, and Elektron 3 and associated debris?	
Seems excessive (I had considered that).
I concur. AM
If you access the Copyvio detector link in the GA toolbox (within the article's talk page), you can see that some of the phrases in the article should be adjusted to avoid them matching the websites they came from. There is inevitably going to be duplicated text within an article like this, but for GA the prose shouldn't be identical, and so a little 'tweaking' is needed.
Done.


### On hold
This looks like a long list, but the article is already in reasonably good shape and these amendments will not take you too long (I hope). Putting it on hold for a week. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Amitchell125 No, these are great, thank you. :) I'll do my best to work on it this week (things exploded so I may be delayed...) The only difficult I see is the lifespan of the satellites -- I know they worked for much of the year from the scientific articles and the data they cite, but it's difficult to get specific beyond "several months" because the articles don't do a great job of assigning which data to which satellite. --Neopeius (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I need to know how soon you can be started on the issues I have raised, as the article has been on hold for nearly a week, and it would be a shame for it to fail when a few hours' work could get it to GA. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I plan to work on it this coming week. For many reasons, some related to the current crisis, I was unable to work on it last week (as I indicated earlier). Thank you for your patience. --Neopeius (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Amitchell125 --Neopeius (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You, sir/madame/your grace, went above and beyond the call of duty. I am embarrassed to have given you an article in such a state -- this was my very first, and it evolved haphazardly. I'm glad it's GA worthy, now. Please enjoy my token of appreciation (check your talk page). Amitchell125--Neopeius (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


### Passing
Hello Neopeius, passing the article now (I'll read through it to check once more, but will only make very minor changes to the prose if there's something we've not spotted). It's a great little article and thanks for helping to make the review process a joy for me. Congratulations, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) (sir).

I am recommending this article stay at the start-class.  The article itself is well-cited, but doesn't do a thorough enough job of explaining the different satellites.  The information under "spacecraft design" should also include information about the scientific payloads.  Additionally, the "Missions" section should better explain the missions themselves, as it just has a short blurb about each mission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and fair assessment.  I'll dig through the scientific papers and see if I can glean more about the instrumentation that way. --Neopeius (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Elektron1a.jpg
Elektron2a.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Found a great resource with more information. Scientific payloads have been improved. Working on mission information (think there's stuff in AandA for 1964). At that point, will polish for B. I think GA will require more historical information. --Neopeius (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we're at B class now, having improved the spacecraft and mission/legacy sections. I'm going to see if AvWeekly has anything noteworthy to add. If so... we may be go for GA --Neopeius (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Reviewed AV. I think I'm done. The only places I could see improving would be to describe the experiments in greater detail in the article itself (but I don't think that's much use to the lay reader) and to go into more detail about the measurements made (again, may be too nitpicky). --Neopeius (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)