Talk:United States Naval Research Laboratory

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bullcrap
The article needs to be extensively revised from the most recent changes, replacing WP:PR public relations baloney with actual facts, such as those that exist. Specifics are needed from sources outside the government. The current article is WP:PEACOCK for NEL NRL. It should not be. Student7 (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * , You may have been correct but this seems to not be true 7 years later. There are plenty of journal references. Yes, there are many references to NRL sites but I prefer primary sources for specifics. I am not going to rely on a news article for the NRL budget. Nobelprize.org is a primary source but I think it should be used. This is the first comment I felt I had to correct. I do not think you meant Peer Review.User-duck (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Tried to replace words that were promotional, or excessive, current with dates. Claims need citations. Accomplishments may need to be included in history, when dates for accomplishments can be found. I am on mobile device and therefore output-limited. Needs same changes in succeeding subsections. Student7 (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for the edits. I was primarily going through the article's references to complete them and check if they still existed. Good comments about use of "current". I agree, lots of uncited claims. There is one tidbit that I am sure is wrong but the process is to add a "citation needed". You referred to WP:PR again, this links to Wikipedia:Peer review, I think you mean "public relations baloney" User-duck (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. Student7 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)