Jump to content

Talk:SOLRAD 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neopeius (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 21 January 2019 (Request for GA review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSpaceflight B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

January 2019 B-Class Review

Good start for this article. The citations need to be improved, as several sentences and ends of paragraphs are without any in-line citations. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention, Captain! Question: Everything is properly cited right now -- where paragraphs don't have cites immediately after, it's because the citation covers both those paragraphs and subsequent material. This is the standard practice in a fixed volume like a book or article. Because of the changeable nature of Wikipedia, are we supposed to cite after every paragraph? Every sentence? Thanks again! --Neopeius (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My standard practice is to have the information cited no later than the end of the paragraph. If information from a single source is only used in one sentence, cite at the end of the sentence. But sometimes information from a source applies throughout the paragraph, so just cite it at the end of said paragraph. My rule-of-thumb is to not cite a source more than once a paragraph. Hope that helps! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It helps a great deal! I will fix it tomorrow or the next day and resubmit for "B". Thanks so much. :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have taken another look at the article, and I would rate it B-class. That being said, it is light on overall information, which is understandable, as the amount of material you can find about a satellite from 1960 is likely limited. Regarding your hopes to improve it further, I wish you the best of luck. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I'd love to find more information on its development and data reduction. Onward and upward. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]