Talk:V-4 (rocket launch)

Notability

From what I can see in Google Books, it looks like the newly cited Neufeld source devotes only a few sentences to the V4 launch, in context of the broader V-2 rocket program. Walter Dornberger, meanwhile, is a primary and unreliable source for this topic. Oshah, can you clarify what excerpts from the cited sources (or elsewhere) you believe establish that the subject meets WP:GNG? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I take it we are agreed that The rocket and the Reich: Peenemünde and the coming of the ballistic missile era is "a reliable source independent of the subject" and the only hangup on WP:GNG is whether it WP:SIGCOVs the V-4 launch?

I chose Neufeld over other potential sources because in its three-page account of the launch, it confirms:

• Key details of the launch in summary form - its date, the designation, explaining why it was delayed from the previous launch, how far it reached, how fast it went (p164)
• The significance of the event - that it broke speed records, that it broke distance records, that it became the first object to reach space. (p165)
• Comparing the specific design changes made from the previous launch that allowed this rocket to succeed, in particular, the strengthening of the nosecone (p163)
• Detailing the reception to the launch by the scientists, including the dinner where Dornberger proclaimed the rocket birthed the space age (p165)
• Describing how it influenced the future of the V-2 program, with the scientists using it to advocate expanding the program, a second example of a lasting effect (p167)

(If you want to know the relevance of the highlighted words in the list above, it's because those words are listed WP:INDISCRIMINATE as content that belongs in Wikipedia. Relevant quote:

"Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works.")

That's the contiguous portion of the account of the V-4 launch, which by my count comes to 540 words. Elsewhere in the book, one can also find statements that discuss:

• The reception to the launch at the political level, in particular the German Chancellor's opinions of the achievement (p169)
• The discussion about the significant use of foreign & slave labor, including how it ramped up after the launch, an important point not to whitewash as per WP:POVFORK (p189). Alternatively, we can also rely on the Smithsonian article about the V-2.
• Bringing in two sentences about the development of the V-4, particularly how it differed from the A-1 and A-2 (ibid Smithsonian).

When you include these discussion points, I'm counting 820 words in Neufeld dedicated specifically to the V-4 launch / its design / its development / its significance / its reception / its influence.

I didn't need to bring in Willy Ley's Rockets missiles and Men (500 words), nor Josef Garlinski's Hitler's last weapons: the underground war against the V1 and V2 (108 words), nor Vengeance: Hitlers nuclear weapon: fact or fiction? (394 words), as additional sources, because all the claims raised in the current version are covered by Neufeld's account of the launch.

But don't take my authority on whether 800 words counts as WP:SIGCOV. You can access Neufeld's serialisation of his book here. The opening paragraph is dedicated to the V-4 launch of 3rd October 1942. Why, in a serialisation, which is meant to function as a summary of the book stripping out the nonsignificant elements, would Neufeld start off with the launch of 1942, unless it was WP:SIGCOVed in his book?

At 820 words, over 8 paragraphs and 28 sentences (about the same length as a major news story on BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Independent, Guardian), calling Neufeld's coverage of the launch as "only a few sentences" is very much stretching the definition of "only a few". --Oshah (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Which source describes this as V-4? The Neufeld and Smithsonian sources only make reference to the rocket as V2 or A4, not V-4. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Both Neufeld and the Smithsonian refer to this rocket launch as V-4. Are you reading the right books/pages?

Re: Neufeld, it looks like you are reading the serialisation, rather than the book. You won't find the launch labelled "V4" in the serialisation. You need to open up p164 of the full book to see where he describes the launch as "V-4".

Re: Smithsonian, are you reading the Summary tab, or the long description tab? By default, the page loads on the summary tab, and you need to click "long description" to find where the launch is called "V-4". --Oshah (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are asking the wider question about which out of all my sources name this launch V-4...

Of the sources I have: Neufeld, the Smithsonian, v2rocket.com, and Klee et Merk name the launch "V-4". On p32 of Klee et Merk, you can also find a photograph of the engineers' original notes where the rocket is headed "V4" (you might be able to borrow an archive.org copy if you don't own this book).

Willy Ley describes the rocket as "production 4", which sounds like he translated the V in V-4 from Versuchsmuster to "production" (literally it translates to "test sample", but in the context of rocketry, the best translation would be "test launch").

Garlinski does not name the rocket at all.

It is disappointing that Henshall mistakes this as "test launch 3", presumably because the first prototype V-1 (not to be confused with the V1) did not launch at all. It is also disappointing that Dornberger's memoirs does not name this missile (however, there is a sentence at the end of p6 in the Bantam edition which I hypothesise might be an overtranslation of the word versuchsmuster like in Ley. I'm hunting the original German edition to see what it was originally called). --Oshah (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'm satisfied with the long description tab of Smithsonian source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)