Talk:Sentient (intelligence analysis system)

Sentient (intelligence analysis system) is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by -- Very Polite Person (talk) at 21:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Short description: Space/satellite based AI intelligence analysis system developed by the U.S. government.

Sentient (intelligence analysis system) was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 31, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Military history: Intelligence / Technology / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Espionage Low‑importance

	Sentient (intelligence analysis system) is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mass surveillance Low‑importance

	Sentient (intelligence analysis system) is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

"Sentient Enterprise"

Given the NRO in 2010 formally called it "Sentient Enterprise", we have some more sources. I have another potential set here (not all will be relevant, was just a quick assemblage there).

Still looking for more. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what this may be in terms of material? Found here, and references "Page n346 U.S. Department of Defense, National Reconnaissance Office. Sentient Program. REL to USA, FVEY. DECL ON 25X1, 20670112. INCG 1.0, February 13, 2012." -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article rating and GAN

I originally saw this article through the talk page of WikiProject Espionage, and I noticed that this article had been changed to B-class and is now a GAN. First off, thank you @Very Polite Person; this is all great work you've done.

Though, I'm not sure about B-class or GAN. The article could certainly use more citations, as it uses the many of same citations multiple times, keeping the citation count relatively low, but the article is quite wordy, and I'm definitely going to go in to fix a lot of the things I think could be better. Normally, I would just change the rating, but since the rating was added so newly, I wanted to bring it up on the talk page first, especially since @Hawkeye7, who rated it, has so much experience.

I think that C-class is a better fit for this article, but I'd like to hear your thoughts, or have a discussion beforehand. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 12:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks! I can't admit to expertise on the ratings thing. At a glance... halfway between C and B today? C.8/10? What are you thinking needs changing? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment is based on project-wide B-class criteria. See Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article sourcing

This article has a lot of good information, but the sourcing is far too heavily reliant on primary sourcing (budget justifications, documents from the National Reconnaisance Office, and so on). I realize it's going to be hard to find a lot of secondary info when the program is mostly classified, but as it stands we're essentially aggregating a bunch of quotes here, which isn't really what WP is for. I put up the primary sources template because I think we might need to winnow our quotes to rely mostly on the few secondary sources that are given. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Very Polite Person: You nominated this article for GAN a week before this complaint was lodged. You've had some time to address it, but nothing has been done. I will quick fail this article if I don't hear from you soon. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am a bit concerned by your comments up above. The day before you nominated this article at GAN, you described it as a "first draft". I don't think that qualifies for GA. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was sidetracked by 'real life' and other projects. I'll swing back to this later. Thanks for your time and sorry. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me again when you nominate it and I will try again. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sentient (intelligence analysis system)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Very Polite Person (talk · contribs) 03:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:
Concerns with primary sources originally raised on the talk page on 23 June 2024, a week after the article was nominated to GAN.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Concerns were raised by other editors on the talk page one day before this article was nominated at GAN. Just before that time, nominator admitted that this is a first draft, which makes it clear that it wasn't ready for GAN at the time of nominiation. After that time, other users lodged complaints about the use of primary sources. That was over a month ago with no sign of the nominator, who disappeared on 23 June. I am quick failing this article for those reasons. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renominated for GA

100% of known/found sources (over a year+) -- considered, integrated or discarded for various policy reasons. More edits than I want to admit. Article was 2,606 bytes before my first edit. Peaked at 40,599 bytes to get everything that was workable in place to refine, and now down to 29,662 bytes.

That cut 10,937 bytes, or four entire copies of the original article as I found it. There's no more sources I know of (yet)--this is about as refined as I can get it. Anything else is probably polish if there's any. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: This article

Saw a post a while ago on the WikiProject Mass Surveillance talk asking for advice on improvements. I think this article would greatly benefit from an explanation of exactly how AI is used -- it currently reads like a press release where AI is used as a buzzword, but even what kind of AI is completely unclear. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be exceptionally greatful for any additional sourcing along those lines. If it exists, anywhere, I've yet to find it. At best we have logical inference for the reader based on standard computer science and related data analysis concepts, intersected with intelligence concepts, which are all public. It's not terribly difficult to put 2+2 on it. After over a year, I've just never found any WP:RS that goes that deep. That's undoubtedly among the rather more classified information. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use what you have. Start with the future ground architecture slide and use your own words to explain the info depicted. That’s a good start. You can use that as a starting point. Filling in the gaps from there in a general way should be easy. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...it didn't even occur to me to use the slide image as a source. You rock. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]