Talk:K-RadCube/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: RabidTuberculosis (talk · contribs) 00:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 20:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@RabidTuberculosis, I'm going to hold the review here. Spotcheck pointed out a concerning number of verification issues. Please make sure information appears in the references it is cited to. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

References

Spotcheck

• [1] - this reflects a 2 hour launch window. By the Artemis II article, 22:35:00 UTC and not 6:24 pm EDT appears to be the correct launch time.
• [4] - Source discusses mission goals, but not specifically on a silicone dosimeter designed to mimic human tissue. (5 contains that information but is not cited for it)
• [5], [6] - Both discuss a South Korean and German cubesat, but not that there were four in total, or that there were 50 countries up for selection. (Ref 4 contains this)
• [8] - Fine.
• [9] - Source (19kg) less precise than article (19.6kg). ( provides the more accurate figure if you want a source)
• [11] - Spotcheck is fine, but our arithmetic is implausible. 5 hours and 7 minutes after a 22:35 launch cannot be 12:58 regardless of timezone because the minutes are mismatched, and can we align the time zones to use either UTC, EST, or KST.
• [14] - Fine.
• [15] - Fine.
• [19] - Fine.
• [22] - Source says this is the distance record for a Korean cubesat and that Danuri was further.

RS

• Most are generally reliable per Cite Unseen. Of the others:
  • Chosun Ilbo: WP:KO/RS gives GREL for non-political topics.
  • Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute and Korea AeroSpace Administration are clearly reliable for Korean spaceflight.
  • The Marco et al. paper and Russell et al. papers do not appear to be peer-reviewed. I think we can take them both on WP:EXPERTSPS WP:ABOUTSELF grounds, as the propulsion engineers describing the propulsion system and NASA representatives describing a NASA program respectively.

This leaves:

• What is Business Korea and why is it reliable?
• What is Asia Business Daily and why is it reliable?
• What is SpaceNews and why is it reliable? Previous zero-comment discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 251#SpaceNews.

Broadness

Was there analysis of the failure? Did anything happen after contact was lost?

Images

• Infobox: CC-BY. Please add alt text.
• Gallery 1: PD-USGOV-NASA. Please add alt text.
• Gallery 2: PD-USGOV-NASA. Please add alt text.
• Gallery 3: KOGL. Please add alt text.