Talk:Out of space in outer space: Special report on NASA's 'space junk' plans

Original reporting
Emails sent to NASA, the ISRO, the ESA, the Chinese government, a professor of space science, various professors of economics, both in the US and other countries, and a company that manufactures satellites. All emails were BCC'd (or forwarded, if I forgot to BCC) to Scoop. The replies (should they be forthcoming) will be forwarded too. DEN DODGE  George Watson  01:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Brian McNeil sent an email to Lloyds, who insure satellites, hoping for comment on how all this impacts (pun not intended) upon their market. Again, BCC'd to scoop. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Some information, including quotes and background information, came directly from the report itself. Last time I called something like this OR, there was a bit of controversy about it, but I believe it still counts under current policy.

As an aside, unless I receive a reply to one of my emails, this article may well have to be deleted as stale, unless the information from the report is sufficient original reporting to salvage it - it's the reviewer's call, but I (although I am biased) think it would be a shame if this article were to go to waste. I'll give it a couple of days, and if nobody bites, "The Chinese government and Iridium Communications have so far failed to respond to Wikinews's queries regarding the incidents" and all the stuff from the report might be enough to save it? DEN DODGE  George Watson  14:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't BRS suggest on IRC that if this batch of folks don't respond, another batch should be contacted? --Pi zero (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but waiting for them will really be pushing it. If it takes two days for this batch to reply, the story will already be a week old... DEN  DODGE  George Watson  15:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, one week with new info recently is about the limit for non-OR. Also, I don't take the view that OR needs to be tied into a given event; really good OR can be the event in its own right. So eventually getting some replies will serve us fine... Especially if we get good economic copy from someone, as I don't think any media ever looked at the financial element. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply from Iridium Communications forwarded to Scoop. DEN DODGE  George Watson  19:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've flagged this for review&mdash;hopefully what OR there is is enough to save it. I was really hoping one of the many economists would reply, but they haven't. If they do within the next 24 hours, I can still add it anyway, and I can always write a second story as a kind of update if one of them does respond later. DEN DODGE  George Watson  20:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Some questions answered by the UK Space Agency; forwarded to Scoop. DEN DODGE  George Watson  18:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism
As I slowly sift through this, I'm continuing to encounter passages that are "too close to the source", and I'm a bit concerned what might have gotten past me before I realized how widespread the problem is. Sizable passages of sources have been transplanted and rearranged somewhat. If that happened only once, I'd apply one standard for how much similarity is tolerable, but if it happens repeatedly, there's a problem of accumulating weight of similarities and I'd apply a stricter standard everywhere (hence my concern I might have not been strict enough early in the review).

In the best synthesis, each nontrivial synthesis passage draws on multiple disparate source passages.

The problem also appears to have been exacerbated by trying to include too high a proportion of content from each source, which could be problematic in itself (copyright-wise) but also makes it much more difficult to avoid these large too-close passages. --Pi zero (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Phenomenon
The phenomenon (or scenario) is known as the Kessler syndrome, which should probably be mentioned. I included a link under See also. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12 14 September 2011 (GMT).