User talk:Pixel63

I write my first article that is located on my sandbox. Can you please give a notice about my contribution before that I publish it. Is is ok? Thanks and Regards

Pixel63 (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Pixel63, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Notability
The important thing that your draft is missing is independent references. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is selective about subjects for articles. The criterion used is called Notability, and is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases.

The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? Wikipedia is not here to "tell the world" about things that have not yet attracted any independent comment.

See WP:42 for what that means, and User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard for some background. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Making another sandbox
I don't understand how to create a second personal sandbox to do a second test. Can you please help me? Pixel63 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved this down - it helps keep things in order if new contributions go at the bottom of a talk page.


 * You can make yourself another sandbox by typing "User:Pixel63/Sandbox 2" (or whatever name you like) in the search box. That will get you a screen saying "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name", but the line just below that is "Create the page."


 * Subpages tells you more about them. It's a good thing to put user sandbox at the top.


 * If the page you want to make is for a draft article, you can use the article title instead of "Sandbox", and put userspace draft at the top. A quick way to do that is to click on Help:Userspace draft and fill in the title there.


 * Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment on your revised draft
I have moved the draft page to User:Pixel63/SANDRA, which will make it a little easier to submit it, and done some minor tweaks to the opening to make it more in our general style. (That leaves User:Pixel63/sandbox empty for anything else you might want to do).

References don't have to be on-line, as long as they are in principle available to a reader who wants to check what the article says, but it's hard for me to assess what those ones say. Are they actually about SANDRA, or are they about the different aspects of what SANDRA is addressing?

I am not too happy with it. It still reads like the project telling the world about itself, with a slightly promotional/self-congratulatory tone: "well-proven industry standards... A robust project and risk management is ensured... The project structure clearly reflects the focus... " The author clearly wants the reader to think well of the project, but ideally the reader of an encyclopedia article should have no idea of the author's personal views of the subject.

What would an article look like written following the advice of a very experienced Wikipedia editor in User:Uncle G/On notability? "'When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit.  If you don't have such sources, don't write.'"

I am rather at a loss what to suggest, and I suspect it may be too early for an article - this is all about what the project plans to do in future, for which the only source can be the project itself: an article should really about things that the project has achieved rather than what it hopes to achieve.

Try it if you like, I am not Authority (Wikipedia doesn't work like that). There is a link in the box at the top which will send it to [[WP:Articles for creation" where another user will look at it.

I think the answer may be to cover SANDRA, at least for the moment, by the briefer mention you have put in the more general article (which needs a reference, by the way). There could be a WP:REDIRECT from the title "SANDRA" to that section of the article.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Dave,

Thanks for your answer, though you are not an authority, I will follow your indications and write a short description of Sandra in the voice “ Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development” and maybe redirect the voice of SANDRA. Naturally I will add references and use a more neutral style. I have already delete words and sentences that sound promotional.

About your question about references, I report a short motivation.

The first reference is an official paper where ATC and AOC services are definite. The reader   if is interested to deepen what services are considered, can go to that paper.

The third is addressing the FCS Communications Study that I cite on my draft.

The fourth is regarding AeroMACS technology. I cite a NASA paper, which describes potential benefits and technical issues about this technology. Actually I could report other papers, I make a subjective choice and I decide that in that paper AeroMACS is well explained. The reference is used as a tip. It is right?

Finally can I use the EU website as reference to prove that Sandra is a EU project? Or it is not necessary?

To insert my references on the main voice “ Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development”, may be can result difficult, I will write a draft page and ask for support to publish. I don’t want to do any mess.

Thanks and have a nice Easter.

Pixel63 (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I do apologise for my delay in replying, and will definitely get back to you either tomorrow or the next day. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Renewed apologies for delay in replying. Your draft is very much better from the point of view of being a neutral description rather than the project telling the world about itself; but I still do not think there is enough evidence of independent comment to establish notability for a stand-alone article, and you have done the right thing to insert it in the main programme article.


 * I have created SANDRA (research project) as a redirect which goes direct to the relevant point in the main Framework Programme article, and I have also added an item, with a link, to the "disambiguation page" Sandra, which is what someone would get who typed "SANDRA" in the search box.


 * I hope you will think that satisfactory. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

great! Thanks a lot. Pixel63 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)