The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 19:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable project. This has been kicking around as a draft for almost two years with no substantial improvement. It keeps avoiding WP:G13 because of the occasional trivial update that resets the clock. The only three references that mention the subject at all are three papers presented at conferences by the lab that runs the project. My own searching failed to come up with anything better. Almost qualifies for WP:G11: "highly adaptable for the needs of any mission", "transceivers were incredibly successful", etc. The promotional language could be fixed, but the problem of no good sourcing remains. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Grey literature
|
---|
The references for this draft article fall under the category of grey literature, referred to as white and grey literature in the essay, Identifying reliable sources (science). That essay notes: "These papers are typically not peer reviewed in the traditional sense, but may nonetheless provide accurate and accessible information. When assessing the suitability of such a source, consider the reputation of the publishing organization, the reliability and proper use of the sources cited, and how the source is in turn cited or discussed by the relevant academic community." reputation of the publishing organization - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is a professional association that publishes several peer reviewed journals and conference proceedings. We have an unassessed article on the first reference's conference—IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium—although it has a multiple issues tag, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (June 2012) [and] This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (June 2012)" reliability and proper use of the sources cited - I'm not sure what "proper use" means, and I don't know of a way to assess the reliability of non-peer-reviewed conference proceeding reports, other than to assume they do not meet WP:RS standards until proven otherwise. how the source is in turn cited or discussed by the relevant academic community - I searched the Astrophysics Data System for the doi and title of reference #1 of the draft article, but neither search returned any results. I search for referred publications by Michael O'Neill, the first author of reference numbers 1, 2, and 3, but the results did not uncover anything similar to the conference proceeding published in a refereed source. (In my experience, "refereed" is usually synonymous with "peer-reviewed", but definitions vary to some extent). Searching for the title of the first citation on Google Scholar, indicates that it has been cited one time in:
which is citation #3 in the draft article and by the same lead author. That doesn't mean the information is useless, and if the draft article cited peer-reviewed journal articles, grey literature like these conference proceeding reports might provide valuable supplemental information. But they are not reliable sources by themselves. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |