Talk:Earth 300

Improved draft

I have made an expanded version of this article at User:MartinPoulter/Earth 300, using a lot more sources and giving more accurate information about what Earth 300 is. Because of COI, I'd like another editor to review and paste in this new version if suitable. Happy to respond to any queries, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope contributors to this article EP111 and DavidWBrooks don't mind being pinged to consider this request. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need a long list of partners for a project that is so far from fruition. This is unnecessary, I think - just empty advertising-speak: "Jefferson has said the design is intended to inspire people to protect the Earth." But otherwise it seems reasonable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@DavidWBrooks: Thanks so much for getting back to me. I have removed from the draft the "Jefferson has said..." sentence and I've removed a sentence from the section on partners. Do I have the go ahead to paste the draft into the article, or can you paste it yourself? MartinPoulter (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Go for it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Design for the Earth 300 research vessel

• ... that Earth 300 has designed a climate research vessel (pictured) which, if built, will include a molten salt reactor and a quantum computer? "Part of the high price tag would be a zero-emission atomic power plant from U.K.-based Core Power, which is developing a ship-borne molten-salt reactor, ... some 160 scientists, who would carry out research and gather data using the ship’s equipment ... including what could be the first commercial ocean-going quantum computer." Atomic Superyacht to Offer $3 Million Eco-Tours With Scientists, Bloomberg

5x expanded by MartinPoulter (talk). Self-nominated at 22:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC).

• @MartinPoulter: The article has been expanded at least 5x, and nominated for DYK six days later, satisfying date and length criteria. Almost all statements are supported by the sources, except:

• the claim "whose spherical shape is inspired by the Earth" is not in either cited source
• the claim "would be the first ship to use this type of reactor" is sourced to a quotation from the founder; it's probably true, but not cited to an independent source

• The hook is fine and sourced. The image is suitable at that size, and freely licenced with a verification ticket at OTRS. I note that the article was expanded by an editor with a COI in the subject, but that the changes were discussed on the article talk page with impartial editors before being implemented with approval. My greatest concern, though, is that the majority of the references are essentially the same; they all seem to state the same talking points, likely a media package from the company coupled with tweaks by the respective publishers. (The fact that most of these were published in mid-April 2021 suggests this is the case.) I think this subject merits an article, but this seems to be some form of refbombing. (Note: I don't doubt the validity of the refs or their publishers, only that they appear to duplicate each other. At least half the sources could be eliminated while still being able to support all claims made in the article from the remaining refs.) As far as DYK is concerned, the two claims I mention above need to be resolved. Mindmatrix 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I am not requesting the removal of any sources, only citing a concern. Mindmatrix 22:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: Thanks for this review. For the spherical shape claim, I've simplified the sentence. The Architectural Digest piece has "Designed to resemble Earth, the orb’s “science city” will house top climate scientists," and the Forbes ref is there to support that the structure is 13 storeys high. For the "first ship" claim I've replaced the reference: Superyachts.com has "Core-Power is a leading figure in the design and integration of Molten Salt Reactors in the marine industry, and will facilitate Earth 300’s journey to become the first vessel to be equipped with this next-generation propulsion system."

The WP:REFBOMB concept is new to me. Looking at the four examples on that page, I don't think this article's use of sources counts. For example, I'm using sources that are fully about the article subject, not sources that mention it in passing. I'm as surprised as you that the coverage sticks closely to what the organisation has put out, but that's the coverage we're working with. When writing a new article about a topic, I amass all the sources I can get my hands on, then work through each one, adding statements that seem interesting. Although the sources have similar content, there are differences in phrasing which are useful for this. Including more sources acts both as a note to self and other editors that the article uses that source has been used and confirms notability. So ceteris paribus, I see it as better to have multiple sources than few sources. I certainly see articles where the footnotes are stuffed with tangential mentions or self-published sources, but again I don't think that describes the present article. I appreciate you bringing this up as something to watch out for.

By the way, just a reminder that when you do a DYK review you need to inform the nominator on their Talk page. No problem in this case because I saw the review in my watchlist. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The issues have been addressed. Regarding the REFBOMB issue, I only mentioned that it was like "some form" of REFBOMB; I know it wasn't quite like it though, and I did state that I thought the refs were valid. Regarding leave a talk page notice, I figured the {{ping}} would be sufficient, as it also provides a visible alert, but I'll keep it in mind for future reviews. The only outstanding issue for this DYK is the QPQ. Mindmatrix 00:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: Apologies - I didn't realise I hadn't linked the QPQ. It's Template:Did you know nominations/Apple worker organizations. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Good to go. Mindmatrix 12:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Tweaked ALT0 to T:DYK/P3

Notability tag

@MainlyTwelve: Thanks for taking an interest in this article. Please could you explain or undo this addition of a notability tag? The subject of the article has generated coverage in multiple sources that are independent of the subject. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello...The bulk of the sources provide fluff that reads as though cribbed from PRNewswire. The only one that approaches reporting is the Bloomberg piece, but even they don't dive into, say, who Olivera has underwriting the project — either handing him checks or marketing the so-called "traditional financial instruments" which would presumably based on future Earth 300 revenue. There's also no quote from an auditor, or suggestion that anyone from any outlet has reached out to KPMG. I've removed the tag for now but it seems like this project is the pipe dream of a grifter who happened to get lucky with a bit of press. — Mainly 22:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements to the article, especially for finding the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists mention. I've fixed a couple of bits of inelegant wording, as you've fixed a lot of mine. I've had to base the article on the sources that are available, not sources that I wish existed. You'll note that my personal opinions on the project are nowhere evident: that's one marker, but of course not a total guarantee, of neutrality. For the record, I'm as surprised as you that so many known media outlets have reported on this topic based on effectively a single source, but they have and it's their decision to make. I'm sure there will be a lot more to add to the article in future when other reliable sources cover the topic. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)