Talk:SpaceX rocket successfully orbits on fourth attempt

California Related

One of the reasons why I added the California category is that the bulk of the 550 employees of SpaceX happen to live and work in California, and it is something that significantly impacts the economy of particularly southern California in a rather big way. As to if this is something relevant in terms of actually happening in California, yeah, that may be debatable. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont disagree that SpaceX is in California. But this article is about the launch, which didn't take place there. If the article was covering SpaceX specifically and just happened to mention they had a launch, I'd agree with that. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision 701678 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Too many sources. There is not enough to this article to warrant needing 9 sources. Please don't link to every page on the topic. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 701678 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Too many sources. There is not enough to this article to warrant needing 9 sources. Please don't link to every page on the topic. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

In fairness about the sources... this is getting widespread original reporting from a broad base of tech-related journalists. I'm including the sources for independent verification of the information... and I'm not entirely sure which sources are "better" than others. I could certainly use a little bit of help here rather than condemning the article due to "too many sources". My heck, usually it is precisely the opposite kind of problem! --Robert Horning (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having sources is good. Having a source or two more than you need, is fine. Or linking to the launch log as a "Source" even though it provides no backing to the article - OK. But Wikinews is not a news aggregation service. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This still isn't helping get the article published or helping Wikinews. No wonder Wikinews is getting stale. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I should note here that I believe having multiple sources (i.e. pull in all of the links that are original news stories) is something that is beneficial. Perhaps some of these ought to be moved to the talk page instead as deep background information (aka a "reporters notebook") rather than on the main article. OK, I'll bite with that. I'm asking for help here, not deep criticism and hoping for some collaborative effort on writing this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea behind non-OR(non-original reporting) stories on Wikinews is to take news published by other organizations and average it out in order to remove bias. So when you list your sources you are saying, "I took things from each of these pages, and NPoVed them." You are not saying, "this is a list of all the stories on this subject". If you didn't use it as a source, then it shouldn't be in the sources. If you none-the-less feel the information in that link is useful to potential readers, but (for whatever reason) you decided not to include it in the article, then put it in an ==External Links== section instead of a sources section.

Now, that said, it is very difficult for one of us to go and remove non-sources after the fact, because we don't know which articles you used as sources. So, by necessity, the onus for making sure that the sources listed are actually used as sources is on the original author(s) of the article. I hope this explanation helps:). Gopher65_talk 16:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate the help here. I still think there ought to be a "reporter's notebook" or something that can list "all of the sources" you can come up with, even if they tend to repeat the same details. And yes, I have been reading all of those articles I listed... which is one reason I fleshed out the article with considerably more detail after the fact. I'm not so sure in this case I can call this original reporting or not, as I did watch the webcast of this launch as well, and have pulled in some details based on reading up on this company over the course of several years.

More to the point, rather than being so critical, thank you for helping me to sort through the references and pulling out the more credible ones, rather than just being negative about the issue. All in all I wish this would have been done as two stories: One to throw up as a "news brief" and this one that is going into much more depth. Next time I'll have to do better, I guess. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Poisonous was the one who removed those sources, so thank her for that;). As for the "news in brief" (probably in the form of a wikinews shorts article) followed by a more indepth story, I see no reason why that couldn't work, as long as the second story had something new to add — probably things like comments from the company, reaction to the launch, comments from the launchee (whoever had their cargo on board), etc. Also, if you feel you need immediate help with something, try logging on to the wikinews IRC. There are almost always people in there willing to help, at any time of the day. Gopher65_talk 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Review 2

Revision 701969 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm glad to see it finally launch:). Next time make sure to put the sources (and then categories) last, and sections like external links and related news on top of sources. I rearranged it this time. Gopher65talk 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 701969 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm glad to see it finally launch:). Next time make sure to put the sources (and then categories) last, and sections like external links and related news on top of sources. I rearranged it this time. Gopher65talk 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Image of the launch

I uploaded a photo of this launch to Commons: Image:Falcon 1 Flight 4 liftoff.jpg. Wronkiew (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for that. I was looking for an image for this article when it was written, and nothing really fit. Now we have an image of a Falcon 1 in flight just after liftoff:). That'll work great for the next article. Gopher65_talk 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)