Template:Did you know nominations/UBAKUSAT

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 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

UBAKUSAT

(

)

... that the UBAKUSAT satellite was built by Turkish students and will orbit the earth for six to twelve months? Source: [1] and [2]
- ALT1:... that the Turkish satellite, UBAKUSAT, is only the second satellite built by students of Istanbul Technical University? [3] and [4]
- ALT2:... that UBAKUSAT satellite, built by Turkish students, carries an experimental card to assess space radiation measuring technology? Source: [5] and [6]

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/United States Semiquincentennial

Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self-nominated at 11:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC).

New enough, long enough, written in neutral manner. The first hook appears in the article, and supported by citations. No copyvio issue found. However, I see it needs some work

While well-cited, many of the citation only describes the website domain name, e.g. amsat-uk.org, dk3wn.info, www.astronautix.com. Please include the website's name and author (or publisher) so that readers can assess whether they're actually reliable sources.
As it stands now the article is not very easy to understand. At the minimum, please

Explain the satelite's purpose and the reason for its Notability in the lead (intro) paragraph,
Explain the technical jargons such as "cubesat", "relative radiation data", and acryonyms such as LEO, PSLV, JAXA. Without understanding these jargons, it's hard for a general user to understand what the article is talking about. HaEr48 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thanks for your review. The jargons have been explained, since they were liked to articles they are acronyms of I thought it was ok. But since you found issues with it, I believe others will too so I have expanded on all of them. Please go through and offer the tick if you think it is alright. God bless. CrossTemple Jay 11:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Crosstemplejay: Thanks for update. Upon reviewing the expanded citations, I found that some of the sources you cited are self-published sources. According to WP:SELFPUBLISH, we should avoid such sources, unless we establish the author to be expert in the relevant fields. Can you take a look at my tags and check if they're written by established experts? Otherwise, those content need a different sources or need to be removed. Thanks. HaEr48 (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thanks for another review. I have taken out all those self published sources. I have taken out content that I could not get alternative source to back. Please go through again. CrossTemple Jay 12:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Good to go now. Citations have been improved, and it's now within policy with regards to citation and neutrality. No copyvio issue detected. New enough and long enough. The first hook checks out in the article and citations. HaEr48 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)