Talk:Science.gov

Article issues
Reposting from Help Desk:


 * 1) In the references section there is a list of external links - can you use those as references for any of the content in the article using tagged references ? At the moment most of the inline citations are to the subject's own website and that kind of self reference is not a reliable source.
 * 2) At the moment I don't think the article shows the "significant coverage in reliable sources" required to establish notability, especially in view of item 1.
 * 3) This item is really a variation on 1 and 2 above.

– ukexpat (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll look at addressing the concerns.

Slederman (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox would be nice. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ – ukexpat (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed the concerns. Would someone experienced in the ways of Wikipedia please tell me how to get the page reviewed and the warnings lifted?

Slederman (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we are quite there yet. Nearly all of the inline citations are to the subject's website. Can you use any of the external links in the References section as inline citations to support the content of the article? At the moment the reader has to check each such link to see how it is relevant to the article. The links in the References section go some way to establish notability, but is there coverage of the site in any well known journals, newspapers etc that can help in this regard? – ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The article now has 23 inline citations. Of these, 15 are external to Science.gov and to OSTI. The external links are to noteworthy sources (e.g. UPI, Whitehouse.gov, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Library Journal, Federal Computer Week, and Government Computer News.) I really do believe that I've established noteworthiness.

Slederman (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, thanks for the hard work. – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the education. Slederman (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)