Template:Did you know nominations/SOLRAD 2
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
SOLRAD 2
[edit]- ... that the destruction by range safety officers of the surveillance/science satellite SOLRAD 2 over Cuba on November 30, 1960, sparked international protest and compromised American missile security? Source: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/april/navys-spy-missions-space
- (Adjectives can be removed as desired)
- ALT0a ... that the destruction by range safety officers of the satellite SOLRAD 2 over Cuba in 1960 sparked international protest and compromised American missile security?
- Comment: This is not exactly a new article (created three months ago, GA one month ago), but the information from this reference (that led to this DYK) was just added, and it is really interesting!
Created/expanded by Neopeius (talk). Self-nominated at 18:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC).
This is indeed interesting but will probably require consensus as whether this should be an instance of WP:IAR. I've opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Request for IAR on SOLRAD 2. Spokoyni (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Since there has been no opposition to this so far, I'm happy to go with that there seems to be general consensus to IAR on the date. So reviewing other details - article is certainly long enough, everything is well sourced to RSs, as you would expect from a good article. I've trimmed the hook a little for brevity and to concentrate on salient details, as shown in alt0a, hope this is ok. As you don't seem to yet have 5 DYK credits, no QPQ is neccesary. A couple of things that stops me passing this at the moment. The copyvio detector comes in a little high at 40%. Some looks like it can be attributed to quotes, but I think sections like "The gathered pieces were then trucked to army headquarters at Palma Soriano and, per a 1988 Beijing document, some of the recovered debris was sold to the People's Republic of China, which aided in the design of the second stage of the CSS-4 intercontinental ballistic missile" ought to be reworked in your own words a little more. Similarly though the article and source definitely support Cuban protests, they don't quite say that its destruction "compromised American missile security". I presume this is a reference to how it allowed some technical details to end up in Chinese hands, which helped them to develop their own missiles, but the source doesn't explicitly say that this was a compromise of American missile security. Can these be worked into the article with appropriate sourcing, or the hook altered? Spokoyni (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support! I have made several changes, and having compared the language in the article to what I have, I think it is sufficiently different to pass muster.
- As for the security matter, given that the article specifically states that debris from our missile was used to build another power's missile, that would seem to be a prima facie compromise of American missile security. :) I have made it more clear that the debris was used specifically for that purpose.
The copyvio detector has come down a hair - 39%, and given that there are quotes, and looking at it in detail, it seems good enough for me. The sources do note that it allowed the Chinese to access some technical details, so if a reasonable interpretation of that is that it was a compromise of American missile security, then that seems fine too. As an aside, I'd have thought that the destruction supposedly caused a (bovine) fatality and a little more on how that affected the nature of the Cuban protests would be relevent and interesting in the article and could make a good hook if you wanted, but that's by the by. Spokoyni (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- As for the security matter, given that the article specifically states that debris from our missile was used to build another power's missile, that would seem to be a prima facie compromise of American missile security. :) I have made it more clear that the debris was used specifically for that purpose.
