Talk:Kosmos 1408

Orbit data

• The current values seem to be the original orbit. The satellite has decayed notably. Heavens-above reports a 465 x 490 km orbit, while n2yo.com reports 472.0 - 497.5 km, that's compatible. This is important as the lower altitude means debris will re-enter the atmosphere much faster. --mfb (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Global orbital data base have data about 600 and 632 km orbit" - what does this mean? --Annihilannic (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you know

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... 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

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Parks (board game)

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

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)

Hi Mike Peel, yes this is now ineligible - Dumelow (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kosmos 1408 and ELINT

The following discussion was moved from User talk:voidxor § Kosmos 1408 and ELINT.

I'm not sure I understand this edit. At [1], which is referenced in the 'Purpose and launch' section of the article, it's said clearly that it's "ELINT (Electronic and Signals Intelligence)". The problem seems to be that ELINT redirects to Signals intelligence, and someone decided to helpfully bypass the redirect? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I was going off of the lead section of Signals intelligence, which has "ELINT" defined as "electronic intelligence" in boldface. If that's wrong, then it should be addressed at that article first. Despite what any sources say, I don't want to be inconsistent across Wikipedia.

But now that you've pointed it out, I see that ELINT currently redirects to a specific section of Signals intelligence. That section seems to contradict the lead to assert—once again—that "ELINT" stands for "Electronic signals intelligence". Even if it stands for "electronic intelligence" (There's no "S" in the acronym, after all.), it would seem that electronic intelligence is a type of signals intelligence, so it seems we're getting into semantics.

Still, my feelings are that these inconsistencies need to be discussed and rectified on Signals intelligence first, and then the redirects and this article can follow suit. Perhaps you should start a discussion there...? – voidxor 17:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For comparison, the cited Drive source calls Tselina an "electronic intelligence satellite system". This article should go with whatever the reliable sources say for Kosmos 1408. If there are issues with the semantics in the signals intelligence article, they should be raised on talk:signals intelligence. Modest Genius ^talk 18:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's the additional problem of what the acronyms actually stand for. The intended function of 1408 is one thing, but the acronym used to shorted it is another. And while I completely agree that we should follow the sources as far as the intended function is concerned, I have to respectfully disagree that—should a source arguably misuse an acronym—we are bound to follow suit. After all, we are linking to Signals intelligence or a specific section of it. So to have a function and associated acronym link to another Wikipedia article that then says, right off the top, that it stands for another thing, I found confusing as a reader which is why I tried to correct it in the first place. – voidxor 20:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We should go with what the sources say - and they say Electronic and Signals Intelligence. That seems to be a bit different from SIGINT? Perhaps ELINT should be a disambig page? If the acronym is really a problem, then I suggest we just write it out, and not link it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I attempted to more closely follow the source just now, perhaps as a bit of a compromise. Although the NASA source says "Electronic and Signals Intelligence", I simplified that slightly to "electronic signals intelligence" because that's the redirect and target section. Now, the only problem that remains is the lead section of Signals intelligence, which implies that "ELINT" stands for simply "electronic intelligence". Or vise versa. That really needs to be hashed out on that article's talk page. – voidxor 17:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kosmos 1408/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CactiStaccingCrane (talk · contribs) 10:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, here we go! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Many thanks for the review! I'll try to start tackling these points later this week. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Numbers based on Special:Diff/1060061284:

• Reference 1, 2, 7, 9, 24 is certainly not reliable, as these are published without any editoral oversight. See the policy for more details
• Suggestion: Consider mining sources available at hand.
• Many references do not have author information.

Content review

• Lede: Good! no major complaint there.
• Mission: Cannot complain, as the USSR is highly secretive at their missions. However, I have some complaint at formatting:
  • were unable to convince sounds like someone can read their minds. Consider rephrasing to could not convince.
  • a single preferred option is redundant. an option is better.
  • all capabilities being combined to all satellites combined
  • The ELINT payloads for Tselina were first tested under the Kosmos designation in 1962 to 1965. is very, very vague in my opinion. What is the payload? What is Kosmos designation? Is it from 1962 to 1965, or just the years 1962 and 1965?
  • The Soviet Ministry of Defence were unable to convince the military sounds like the department cannot convince itself to an onlooker
  • Continued improvements in the payload. Again, what payload? Is it the satellite? Or, is it something else?
  • Tselina-O for broad observations and Tselina-D for detailed observations What aspect is it? Is it angular resolution or field of view?
• Spacecraft: There are some issues at editorializing at this section. Consider adding alternative text to the image for the blind or low-bandwidth readers to understand what's going on.
  • Kosmos-1408 was part of the Tselina-D system. to Kosmos-1408 was a part of the Tselina-D constellation.
  • It had a mass of around 1,750 kg (3,860 lb), and a radius of around 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in). to The satellite weighed 1,750 kg (3,860 lb) with 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) radius at the body.
  • Kosmos-1408 was launched on a Tsyklon-3 launch vehicle on 16 September 1982, from Site 32/2, at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome. The paragraph is decent, but I suggest to get rid of "launch vehicle" linking because it is redundant. See WP:Linking if you want to find more about this.
  • but probably operated for around two years, after which it became inactive is quite excess. In my opinion, the trimmed paragraph but it has operated for around two years is way better.
  • It did not have a propulsion system, so could not be deliberately de-orbited at the end of service. This sentence, like some others in the article, is missing a complete clause. A clause in English can be thought of as a full sentence, and generally, when use linking words such as "and", "but", "so", it links two complete clause together. In this case, It did not have a propulsion system is perfect, but could not be deliberately de-orbited at the end of service. is not optimal. Rewrite the clause to the satellite could not de-orbit itself at the end of service.
  • The orbit was slowly decaying to Its orbit slowly decayed

That's it for now! Ping me ( {{ping|CactiStaccingCrane}} ) if you have any questions! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Response

@CactiStaccingCrane: Thanks again for the review! Sorry for the delay in replying, it's been a busy week. I've implemented most changes based on your review, but there are some I haven't implemented. Here are the reasons why I haven't implemented them:

• Tselina-O for broad observations and Tselina-D for detailed observations What aspect is it? Is it angular resolution or field of view?

• I don't know. References are ambiguous, and I can't find a good source that would let me clarify this in the article.

• Kosmos-1408 was part of the Tselina-D system. to Kosmos-1408 was a part of the Tselina-D constellation.

• 'system' seems to be preferred to 'constellation', and is used consistently in the article. In general, "constellation" refers to astronomy constellations, while 'system' is more relevant for these technical systems.

• It had a mass of around 1,750 kg (3,860 lb), and a radius of around 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in). to The satellite weighed 1,750 kg (3,860 lb) with 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) radius at the body.

• Weight relies on gravity, mass is independent of that. I don't understand what you mean by 'at the body'.

• Reference 1, 2, 7, 9, 24 is certainly not reliable, as these are published without any editoral oversight. See the policy for more details

• I've double-checked these references, but I think that they are reliable. 1 & 2 are to pages published by Jonathan McDowell. 7 and 24 are by LeoLabs, I'll start an article on them soon, again they seem reliable though. Less sure about 9, I'll look into this more. In general they seem OK, and 'editorial oversight' as described that policy seems to refer to sponsored sources, which really doesn't apply here.

On mining sources: I've tried to do this, will double-check it soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying to me! I will review everything later though, since I am pretty busy both at Wiki and in real life. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Just a reminder about this for when you have the time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I gonna skim through the article again and see what needs to be fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sum up

From Wikipedia:Good article criteria:

• 1a: No complaint here, stuff can be fixed but it has vastly improved since the start of the review, pass.
• 1b: Lede ok, layout is acceptable, no word-to-watch is found. Pass.
• 2a: Obvious pass
• 2b: Verifiable, pass
• 2c: Spot-checked, no original research is found
• 2d: Checking, no copyvio is found
• 3a: Article does not "drift" to other topic, pass
• 3b: Good enough, summarized the situation
• 4: Pass
• 5: Obvious pass
• 6a: Tagged, pass
• 6b: Pass

Well, then, congrats! That's a good read. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

To make sure that this is not rubberstamped, look above. The incident is pretty obscure in technical details, so the article is what would I've expected. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)