Talk:Sierra Nevada Corporation

Possible help
My Father works for Sierra Nevada Corp., if this is helpful at all let me know! --Techdude 42 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

RocketMotorOne ?
Is there a RocketMotor1, and did Sierra Nevada develop it? 70.24.251.224 (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Advert tag
Apparently I tagged the article as being advert-like in 2017. has asked me to comment on this.

I have not reviewed the article's history very closely, so these are comments based on the current article, and are not intended to call-out any specific editors.

At a glance, I still see some significant advertising problems. In the lead, we see "solutions". This is a WP:BUZZWORD. See WP:SOLUTION, also. "High performance" has a discrete meaning, but to a general audience reader, this also reads like a buzzword. The lead also fails to adequately summarize the body of the article. Ideally, the lead will clearly indicate to readers why this company is noteworthy according to WP:IS. Presumably, this would include both flattering and unflattering information, assuming this meets WP:DUE.

In the first paragraph of the body, the use of excessively vague language is another issue. "It started as a small business with a few employees, working out of an airplane hangar in Stead, Nevada." This seems like filler, because no reader would assume that it started as a large company with many employees. This style of writing crafts a narrative without providing readers with substantial, verifiable information. This is promotional, because it expects readers to engage by filling-in the gaps.

In the rest of the article, I see some issues with sources. I would invite someone more knowledgeable about aerospace to review and make sure they meet WP:RS. Generally, niche outlets are treated as lighter weight than general ones, just as local news is lighter-weight than national or international news.

Anyone affiliated with SNC must follow Conflict of interest. Anyone who is compensated for editing must follow Paid-contribution disclosure. It may also be helpful to review Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Advert tag update
Updates were made to copy throughout the article to minimize any possible WP:BUZZWORD. References with broken links or listed on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist were replaced with more legitimate sources. Sources such as space.com (Space News) were verified and meet WP:RS. There are certainly some references that carry lighter weight, but they seem to be niche topics which may not be picked up by national or international news. Can you please weigh in again to consider removing the advert tag or have another editor weigh in?

Your comments were very helpful. Thank you. Bubble567gum (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello. Sorry, I lack the time to be more thorough right now, but in the lead I see two problems. Removing these from the lead, and the body of the article, would be the next step for removing the ad tag.
 * The word "solutions' is still in the lead. I already mentioned this, but WP:SOLUTIONS is an essay which explains why this is a red flag, and the word's prominent inclusion here suggests more work is needed.
 * "Some of the company's more notable achievements..." reads like ad-copy, for a couple of reason, such as "notable" being WP:EDITORIALIZING for flattering effect, and "some" being vague and similarly flattering. Stick to a formal and informational WP:TONE. I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Advert tag update
Have you had a chance to review the updates to remove the advert tag? Bubble567gum (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

any thoughts on the new updates?


 * At a glance, the article still suffers from "biz-speak". The first sentence ("... is an American, privately held aerospace and national security contractor specializing in aircraft modification and integration, space components and systems, and related technology products for cybersecurity and eHealth.") is bloated. Even if it were not too long, these terms are borderline jargon, so the lead still reads like a press-release or similar. It will not be obvious to a broad readership what "integration" means in this context, nor how space components and systems would be "related" to ehealth products. Both "ehealth" and "products" are also mild buzzwords. The over-reliance on press releases, including in the lead, is another red flag. Use WP:IS in most cases. Further, the "400 successful..." line is sourced from the tail end of a local blurb, which strongly suggests that this is regurgitated PR. (see churnalism). Since Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, using details like this in the lead is excessive. If this is truly defining, find better sources which support it as defining. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sierra Space - separate article?
In the "space systems" section, I removed a wikilink on Sierra Space because currently that is simply a redirect to this current page. However, it would seem to me that if this is an "independent commercial" company that does currently have contracts and a relationship with NASA, a separate article should probably be created specifically for "Sierra Space". I'd want to do a bit more research into how separate it is, but an article seems plausible. If such an article is created, then obviously adding a link back in makes sense. But for the moment, the link is pointless. - Dyork (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dyork I replaced the redirect with a newly created Sierra Space page and restored the wikilink. Prainog (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - Six months later... I just want to say thank you for creating the new page. It looks great! - Dyork (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)