Talk:Sentient (intelligence analysis system)

Quick review thoughts
Nice work. On a glance, it is not compliant with MOS:QUOTE or, possibly, MOS:LISTBULLET. I suggest you have a look at these before thinking about GAN. Or submit it to GOCER and pay attention to what gets changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I ran through and did a bunch of consolidation, collapsing blockquotes and the full lists from NRO. It was very much still first draft/expansion. I'll keep streamlining and check out GOCER. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Sentient Enterprise"
Given the NRO in 2010 formally called it "Sentient Enterprise", we have some more sources. I have another potential set here (not all will be relevant, was just a quick assemblage there).


 * https://spacenews.com/nro-planning-shift-to-smaller-satellites-new-ground-system/
 * https://trajectorymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Show-Daily-2013-14-Day-4.pdf

Still looking for more. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know what this may be in terms of material? Found here, and references "Page n346 U.S. Department of Defense, National Reconnaissance Office. Sentient Program. REL to USA, FVEY. DECL ON 25X1, 20670112. INCG 1.0, February 13, 2012." -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Article rating and GAN
I originally saw this article through the talk page of WikiProject Espionage, and I noticed that this article had been changed to B-class and is now a GAN. First off, thank you @Very Polite Person; this is all great work you've done.

Though, I'm not sure about B-class or GAN. The article could certainly use more citations, as it uses the many of same citations multiple times, keeping the citation count relatively low, but the article is quite wordy, and I'm definitely going to go in to fix a lot of the things I think could be better. Normally, I would just change the rating, but since the rating was added so newly, I wanted to bring it up on the talk page first, especially since @Hawkeye7, who rated it, has so much experience.

I think that C-class is a better fit for this article, but I'd like to hear your thoughts, or have a discussion beforehand. Thanks, Neuropol  Talk  12:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks! I can't admit to expertise on the ratings thing. At a glance... halfway between C and B today? C.8/10? What are you thinking needs changing? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Assessment is based on project-wide B-class criteria. See Content assessment/B-Class criteria for details. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Article sourcing
This article has a lot of good information, but the sourcing is far too heavily reliant on primary sourcing (budget justifications, documents from the National Reconnaisance Office, and so on). I realize it's going to be hard to find a lot of secondary info when the program is mostly classified, but as it stands we're essentially aggregating a bunch of quotes here, which isn't really what WP is for. I put up the primary sources template because I think we might need to winnow our quotes to rely mostly on the few secondary sources that are given. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)