Talk:Phoenix (nuclear technology company)/Archives/2014

Copyright problems

Large parts of the article are copied and pasted from http://phoenixnuclearlabs.com Theroadislong (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing Content

I would like to edit the content of this article so that it does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies. As an employee of this company, I am asking for help to do this from anyone who would be able to.

My current plan of action would be to delete a lot of the unnecessary, or dense, information that is being presented, especially within the "Products" and "Solutions" sections.

Also, I have about 20-25 online articles from third party sources that I would like to incorporate into the article.

Is this an appropriate start to trying to fix this article? Thanks! CassieMe (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an appropriate start. Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. I have left you a reply to your detailed question at the Teahouse, showing a good and standard mechanism for requesting edits.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please compare your suggested sources against these tough criteria, and then I suggest you list those that pass muster below so that others may see them and consider them. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent Thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate the help. I have several online sources that I can reference but here are seven to look over that I think will work, especially for the history section. Please let me know if you would think these can be added. Thanks!

1. SHINE supplier wins contract (GazetteXtra): Article about PNL’s founder Dr. Piefer and some data about the company: http://www.gazettextra.com/article/20140227/ARTICLES/140229752
2. Phoenix Nuclear Labs receives two contracts from the US Army: http://host.madison.com/business/phoenix-nuclear-labs-gets-army-contracts/article_284fff28-1d3c-11e2-aaaa-0019bb2963f4.html
3. Phoenix Nuclear Labs lands contract with British company: http://www.jsonline.com/business/phoenix-nuclear-labs-lands-contract-with-british-facility-b99213392z1-247109551.html
4. Phoenix Nuclear Labs is getting a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to design and build a device that could impact the way computer chips, medical isotopes and nuclear energy are produced: http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/technology/biotech/tech-and-biotech-phoenix-nuclear-labs-gets-funds-for-cutting/article_5e0140c6-e058-5156-ad15-058d15708d85.html
5. Phoenix will work on a device that creates hydrogen ions: http://tech-bit.com/tech-and-biotech-phoenix-nuclear-labs-gets-funds-for-cutting-edge-project/
6. Army Lt. Gen. William Phillips has joined PNL’s seven-member board of directors: http://www.freshnews.com/news/988038/lt-gen-phillips-joins-pnl-board-directors and http://technews.tmcnet.com/news/2014/09/19/8025824.htm
7. Phoenix demonstrates new system capability to detect hard-to-find explosives: http://www.homelandsecurity-technology.com/news/newsphoenix-demonstrates-new-system-capability-to-detect-hard-to-find-explosives-4315572 CassieMe (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

These all look like acceptable sources to me except this one and this one which are both press releases and this one, which looks like a slight re-write of a press release. Also, I would be cautious using short blurbs about contract wins. A "Notable works"-type section is needed for any professional services article (and some others), but the works we include must be carefully selected based on their significance to the subject. There is no clear way to evaluate which to include except "good judgement". For example, contracts/projects included in profile sources are clearly acceptable for inclusion and more in-depth sources suggest greater significance. CorporateM (Talk) 18:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking through these. I will keep this in mind. CassieMe (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

First requested edit

I would also like to update the first paragraph in the article:

‘’’Phoenix Nuclear Labs (PNL)’’’, located in Monona, Wisconsin, is a company specializing in high yield neutron generator technology. Founded in 2005, the company develops nuclear and particle accelerator technologies for applications in medicine, military defense, and energy. PNL has been contracted by the U.S. Army, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Air Force and has recently begun commercial sales.

References

CassieMe (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Question The current first paragraphs says "Phoenix Nuclear Labs (PNL), located in Monona, Wisconsin, is a company specializing in high yield neutron generator technology. Founded in 2005, the company develops nuclear and particle accelerator technologies for application in medicine, defense and energy. PNL has held contracts with the U.S. Army, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Air Force. PNL developed a proprietary gas target neutron generator technology and has designed and built a number of particle accelerator-related technologies. It has the technology to produce 3X1011 neutrons per second with the deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction.[3]"

Please would you address the rationale for removal of some of the cited material? In cases like this it helps to explain it so an uninvolved eidtor can say "Of course! I see clearly why this change is required!" Such an edit made by any editor would be challenged simply on the basis that some cited material is removed, so clarity is important here. This is something you will need to consider with other requested edits, too. Fiddle Faddle 23:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It was to try to avoid having the first paragraph sound like an advertisement but if you think it should stay, then by all means it should stay. Do you feel that the added reference would be an added benefit? CassieMe (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I intend to stay out of the article itself and out of direct answers regarding content. The purpose of my question was to ask for the rationale. I am acting as a neutral guide for you in process and procedure. Editors, other editors, who watch this article, need to be the ones to accept or reject your requests. So the better the case you make, the better the rationale you give, the easier their decision will be. You need to be content whether they accept or reject your requests, natrually. Fiddle Faddle 17:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking it is best to write the Lede (the section at the top) last. I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate whether "high yield" is promotional or scientific and my reflexive response is that it focuses too much on contracts won and products, rather than corporate history. However, the Lede is suppose to (a) define the subject and (b) summarize the article and it is difficult to know how to properly summarize the article. The Lede is not required to have citations, so long as the material in it is cited in the body. However, if there is something specifically problematic about the Lede (it is difficult to compare two versions), please let me know and I'll make sure it gets fixed. CorporateM (Talk) 18:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Requested Edit

I have updated and added a bit to the "History" section of this page. I have added sources to every statement. I have added links to other Wikipedia pages. I have added links to other websites. I have also re-worded a few of the paragraphs, as well as updated grammar/spelling mistakes. Lastly, I've added the final paragraph, with a source, because it came out today. Please let me know if you think this is ok.

Here is what I've written:

History

Phoenix Nuclear Labs was founded in 2005 by Dr. Gregory Piefer after he completed his Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Piefer is also the CEO of PNL’s sister company SHINE Medical Technologies and he has served as the Chief Technical Officer for Gillware, Inc

In July 2011, Dr. Ross Radel, who joined PNL in 2010, became President of PNL. He earned his M.S. and his Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

In October 2012, PNL was awarded two contracts from the US Army. PNL received an $879,000 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase II grant to construct a high-flux neutron generator for the purpose of detecting improvised explosive devices (IED). The second contract, an $100,000 SBIR Phase I grant, was awarded to PNL to design a neutron source for White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

In February 2014, PNL signed its first commercial contract with a British company that specializes in defense and security, transport, and energy.

In April 2014, PNL was awarded $1 million from the U.S. Department of Energy to design a high-current negative hydrogen ion source under the SBIR Phase II project.

In July 2014, PNL passed the preliminary testing on a system that can detect explosive materials, including improvised explosives devices (IED) that could potentially go undetected through existing scanners that use X-ray technology.

In August 2014, PNL and SHINE Medical Technologies achieved a significant milestone with the development of a 24-hour accelerator test. The companies successfully operated the second-generation neutron driver prototype for 24 consecutive hours with a 99% uptime.

In October 2014, PNL announced that it was awarded a $3 million contract by the U.S. Army to develop an advanced neutron radiography imaging system. The second-generation version will be sent to Picatinny Arsenal, a military facility in New Jersey, as an upgraded unit to one that PNL sent there in 2013.

References

CassieMe (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Third requested edit

Lt. Gen. William Phillips has recently joined PNL's board of directors. I feel like this is worthy to mention on the page in the corporate history, esp if you feel this source will work: http://www.wisbusiness.com/index.iml?Article=331923

"In September 2014, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Phillips joined PNL's board of directors." CassieMe (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I've culled through it and trimmed some material that had really weak sources, such as one-paragraph blurbs or was about the company's executives, rather than the corporation itself, and inserted the rest. I noticed that the company has only 30-40 employees and the sources overall do not seem very strong. Your efforts here may not be a good use of your time (or ours) if the company does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for the company to qualify for a page. Specifically, there must be at least two credible, independent sources that cover the organization in substantial depth. Typically for companies this is achieved through two in-depth profile stories in the media. If you could provide a couple in-depth profiles (if they exist) this would not only assist in verifying this criterion has been met, but as a starting place for the article. Such profile stories are the best way for us to get a sense of what is significant to the org by relying on the judgement of the profile. CorporateM (Talk) 18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I will begin the process of seeing if I can find any stories that may be considered more "in-depth." Thank you for your help, I think the edits look great. CassieMe (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)