Talk:Space Development Agency

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space Development Agency article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[United States Army Futures Command#Countering hypersonics|Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor]] The anchor (#Countering hypersonics) has been deleted.
[[United States Army Futures Command#BMC3|BMC3]] The anchor (#BMC3) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Ref overkill[edit]

@Ancheta Wis: 27 refs tacked onto the end one sentence... isn't that a bit much? Does the sentence contain 27 different facts that need to be supported? How many refs are providing duplicate support? How many have nothing to do with the sentence, (or even the paragraph) at all? Should any of the refs be placed elsewhere in the article? Can any be removed without compromising the article's sourcing? Lastly, can I suggest giving Wikipedia:Citation overkill a read? - wolf 19:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The refs are the tip of an iceberg: 'Overcomplication induced by the processes of DoD'. The article is on SDA, but overcomplication goes back to scope creep and the incessant demand for certainty in the face of insecurity of the stakeholders (citizens, taxpayers, servicemen, adversaries, etc.). I am happy to comment out the refs if that is what you need. For example, Raven Rock Mountain Complex is an outdated article, but that comes not from reading the refs, but from reading the content. In contrast, the refs of SDA are statements of what needs to be done if an editor has the time and knowledge without transgressing their commitments. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, refs support what's in the article, not the other way around. If a particular item of content is supported by one or two refs, there's really to need to add a third, fourth or twenty-fifth one. If you have more refs with content that's not in the article, then you should consider adding that content. (jmho) - wolf 03:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the markup concealing the complications of the real world. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you're welcome? - wolf 03:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also here for the same reason. I don't understand Ancheta Wis's reasoning and may just remove all these refs. From what I can tell, there is one footnote No magical fix to acquisition. which supports this statement in the article: this separation of function decouples the technology development of a working prototype system, even the systems as complicated as those taken on by the SDA, from overcomplication induced by the processes of the DoD.^[G] And then there is nested set of 100 refs based on these notes that proceed off of the original footnote: There is "no magical fix" for DoD acquisition., There are 40,000 objects in space to be tracked., The Department of the Air Force (DAF) has 3 Space acquisition organizations, of which SDA is but one., OCX is the ground control segment for the GPS block III constellation which is capable of responding to M-code commands from the Earth stations., China is planning a Great Wall of 13,000 satellites., Overclassification is a huge problem.—DoD policy chief.

This is not how references are supposed to work, and seems to be citation overkill. Refs are not meant to be nested or explain things other than what is in the article Natg 19 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox needs updating[edit]

I'm not well-versed enough to do it myself, but the infobox needs to be updated to reflect the change of parent organization (United States Space Force) and such. Maabonnet (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold. The changes are localized, so you can learn how. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 03:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation is at {{template:Infobox government agency}} which you can open in the Wikipedia search box. The article has its own instance of the template, so your article changes are immediate. It's low risk, and you can contribute. Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)

SDA Launches Tranche 0 Satellites[edit]

This update needs to be incorporated in the article:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3348974/space-development-agency-successfully-launches-tranche-0-satellites/

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 12:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]