User talk:Davidch12

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nouniquenames (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nouniquenames (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

explanation
The reviewer above asked for another opinion. I think he is correct--such projects are usually notable only when they have actually produced results, or at least been built and coming into operation, not just when they have been commissionned. If there is extensive news coverage, it can be another matter, but that is usually true only for the largest projects. To show that, you need several references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases.

I would expect that the project will indeed be notable in time, and then suitable for a Wikipedia article. At that point, there probably will be potential for individual articles on the two lead scientists as well.  DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two inter-related rules: the widely accepted guidelines: WP:Notability and  WP:Reliable Sources. There are two different ways in whic hwe use the term "reliable sources": one is a source sufficiently reliable to prove something in an article, and the other is a source that is sufficiently reliable to demonstrate that the subject of an article is notable.  relevant policy is WP:Reliable Sources, both the policy itself,
 * What us necessary to prove something in an article depends on what is being proven--for the plain facts of something, a press release from NASA or a university is sufficient. For a value judgment, the source needs to be one with a recognized independent authority, such as independently edited books or newspapers--but this specific problem does not arise here. To show that something is important enough to be in Wikipedia,a concept we call "notability", it is necessary to show that it is being discussed in a substantial way in responsibly edited independent sources by those not related to the subject .   A press release is prepared by those related to the subject, and obviously they think it important. This does not show that other people not related to the subject think it important,and that is the criterion. If the grant is discussed  substantially in scientific news magazines, such as Physics Today, it would indicate notability. I note that a campus or local newspaper is not an independent source for the importance of what happens at that university: they are considered insufficiently discriminating.


 * If you can find such sources, rewrite the article using them. For a project of this sort, experience has shown us here that there are usually not such sources until there are results.   DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi David. I shared these sources on Noun's Talk page (see below). Just over the last couple days the subject obtained significant media coverage, which now better equips us to write about it.
















 * King4057 put the references into your submission. All you need to do is put information from the sources into the article in front of the citation and resubmit.--Nouniquenames (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  David_FLXD  (Talk) 12:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.


 * Woot! Congrats. Nice work. User:King4057 12:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well done! --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This would not have been possible without everyone's time and efforts. Thanks to both of you! -Davidch12 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)