This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
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. BetacommandBot16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be extensively revised from the most recent changes, replacing WP:PRpublic 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 NELNRL. It should not be. Student7 (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Student7:, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Student7:, 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)[reply]
.jpg)
