ULA christa

Your submission at Articles for creation: Salvatore Bruno (March 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Salvatore Bruno and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! ULA christa, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at your draft just now and made some changes and comments inline (edit and you will find them signed with "ke4roh"). ULA press releases should be used sparingly, particularly if other (news, books, periodicals, etc.) sources provide the same information. This is because they are more prone to exaggerating (not a commentary on ULA, just on the motivations for writing press releases). -- ke4roh (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Particularly appreciate your tracking down the links. Why do you think the list of accomplishments (RocketBuilder, etc) should be in a paragraph? Is that a Wiki style to get used to? And yes, those achievements are definitely attributable to Tory. Thank you again. --ULA christa (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROSE is the official guidance. It's certainly subject to interpretation, but I've found a strong bias for prose unless it's something that really lends itself to listing. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi! It was a pleasures meeting you IRL at ULA Friday. I'll tell the story of that tour for some time to come.

I looked over the article you submitted, and it looks decent, though lacking in references. That'll be a trick both for notability and the WP:BLP policy of referencing information about living people. It might be easier to start with a shorter piece, adequately sourced, and expand it sourcing alongside the way. Richard Coar, though not an exemplary article, is about the right length to start and sourced. Wikipedia:ProveIt will make it easier to format and enter references.

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please reach out whenever I might be able to help. ke4roh (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ke4roh: Thank you! Good suggestion. In addition to not sourcing, I think there's an issue with how i sourced-- using inline sources vs footnotes. Where is the guidance for when to use each type? I think we'll need to tackle from both directions.

And it was my pleasure to meet so many Hipsters! What fun. I'm thrilled it was such a good experience for you all. ULA christa (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation guidance is here: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations - It says there, "While most articles use footnote citations as described in the above sections, some articles use a parenthetical referencing style." - but it's probably much harder to get a lengthy new article approved using parenthetical references than footnotes.

To expedite talk page conversations, you may use Template:Talkback on the other user's page. -- ke4roh (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ke4roh: thank you so much! ULA christa (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Salvatore Bruno (June 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eddie891 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Salvatore Bruno and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eddie891 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well on the way! Let's have another crack at it, and pay special attention to peacock terms. :) -- ke4roh (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Salvatore Bruno (July 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Salvatore Bruno and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Salvatore Bruno has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Salvatore Bruno. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Salvatore Bruno has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Salvatore Bruno. Thanks! Worldbruce (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Salvatore Bruno (September 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Salvatore Bruno and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Salvatore Bruno concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Salvatore Bruno, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Salvatore Bruno concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Salvatore Bruno, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Salvatore Bruno

Hello, ULA christa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Salvatore Bruno".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Tory Bruno -- can you get a photo?

Hi Christa,

I see that you've done some work in the past to try to get an article about Tory Bruno through AfC. As I think you've discovered, the whiff of it being a PR piece made people extra skittish about notability. However, I think being the CEO of a company the size of ULA is a pretty clear claim to notability, so I took an old draft, trimmed it quite a bit, and moved it to Tory Bruno. (I didn't notice your version at Draft:Salvatore Bruno or I'd probably have used it as a starting point.)

It would be really lovely if that article could get a proper photo of Mr. Bruno, especially like a headshot or something. It'd have to be either public domain or licensed under cc-by-sa. Is that something you can arrange? Please feel free to ask me any questions here or on twitter (@kmccoy) if I can clarify the licenses for you. Thanks!

P.S. I met several ULA press people (as well as Mr. Bruno) at the NASA Social for the OSIRIS-REx launch -- were you there?

kmccoy (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kmccoy: Thanks for your help. I'll see if ULA might be willing to share a photo that will work. I was indeed at the OSIRIS-REx launch -- I was one of the people handing out temporary tattoos and answering questions while the group was with Tory. So exciting to watch it lift off two years and then watch it arrive at Bennu recently. It really is amazing. More on the photo soon. ULA christa (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

History - Update Request

Hello, I'm back to propose changes to the History section for editors to consider. The current version has some content with no sources, several facts more suitable for (or already covered in) other sections, and some text out of chronological order. I've reviewed the current sourcing and text, and re-written an overview of the company's history. I've tried to cover many of the same topics, even those critical of ULA, and added a few updates. I also removed the two subsection titles because most of the text is not about the company's formation or restructure.

On the topic of critical content, I've proposed moving content in the Controversy section into the History, eliminating the separate section. I take issue with some of the content in the Controversy section, and may submit requests to change select text at a later date, but for now I'm only trying to remove the separate section per Wikipedia:Criticism#"Controversy"_section. Those four paragraphs are colored red below for easy identification. I've not proposed any changes to this text at this time.

Additionally, I see many corporate articles have an overview or 'Corporate affairs' section briefly describing the company's services, headquarters location, number of employees, and executive leadership. The ULA article does not have one, so I've suggested one below for review as well.

I'm still a member of ULA's communications team and have a WP:Conflict of Interest, so I won't be editing the article directly. But I hope editors will see the suggestions below as improvements.

Corporate affairs

ULA is a private aerospace engineering company and launch service provider, established as a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin in 2006. The company is based in Centennial, Colorado. ULA had nearly 2,500 employees overall, as of mid 2018. Tory Bruno serves as president and chief executive officer. John Elbon has held the chief operating officer role since April 2018.

History

Following clearance from the Federal Trade Commission in October 2006, ULA began operating on December 1, 2006, as a 50/50 joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The company consolidated engineering and production facilities to locations in Decatur, Alabama, Harlingen, Texas, and Littleton, Colorado. ULA successfully completed its first launch on December 14, 2006.

ULA held a monopoly on military rocket launches in the United States until the company faced competition from SpaceX. With the introduction of competition from lower-cost launch providers and the increasing costs of ULA launches year-over-year, increased attention has been paid to the amounts ULA has received for US government launch contracts, and for its annual government funding of $1 billion for launch capability and readiness. In particular, an uncontested US Air Force block-buy of 36 rocket cores for up to 28 launches, valued at $11 billion, awarded in Dec 2013, drew protest from competitor SpaceX. SpaceX has claimed the cost of ULA's launches are approximately $460 million each, and has proposed a price of $90 million to provide similar launches. In response, former ULA CEO Michael Gass claimed an average launch price of $225 million, with future launches as low as $100 million.

Tory Bruno became president and CEO in August 2014, replacing Gass, who had served in the same role since the company's inception. ULA's corporate restructure in 2014 has been attributed to competition with SpaceX. In 2015, ULA partnered with Blue Origin to develop an American-produced engine to replace the Atlas V's RD-180 engine, designed and manufactured in Russia. Congress passed legislation phasing out the ability to contract for use of the engine for national security purposes, effective December 31, 2022. Aerojet Rocketdyne made a $2 billion bid to acquire ULA in 2015.

ULA released contract values to the public and CEO Tory Bruno testified before Congress in March 2015 that whilst ULA receives government subsidies "to conduct national security launches" the same is true of SpaceX who receive funding "to develop new capabilities and the use of low- or no-cost leases of previously developed launch infrastructure".

A political controversy arose in March 2016 following public remarks by ULA VP of Engineering, Brett Tobey, that included comments that were "resentful of SpaceX" and dismissive of one of the two competitors (Aerojet Rocketdyne) for the new engine that will power the Vulcan launch vehicle currently under development. Tobey resigned on March 16, while ULA CEO Tory Bruno disavowed the remarks. Senator John McCain asked the Defense Department to investigate the comments that implied the DoD may have shown "favoritism to a major defense contractor or that efforts have been made to silence members of Congress" and the Secretary of Defense has requested the Inspector General to open an investigation of the controversy.

The company launched a website for constructing custom rockets in late 2016, called RocketBuilder. In April 2017, Bruno confirmed plans to layoff 875 employees by the end of 2017, and to eliminate the Delta IV line of rockets, which were deemed unnecessary for meeting the United States Air Force's mandate for two separate spaceflight systems following certification of SpaceX's Falcon program.

In June 2017 Ars Technica analyzed a US Air Force budget and concluded that if ULA would be selected for all the Air Force launches in year 2020 and 2021, the cost per launch would be on the order of $420 million. ULA's CEO Tory Bruno described the analysis as "misleading"; in July the company was awarded $191 million single-launch contract to launch the STP-3 mission aboard the heavy-lift Atlas V 551.

On May 6, 2018, approximately 600 employees affiliated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union went on strike after rejecting ULA's proposed three-year contract. Picket lines were formed in Alabama, California, and Florida, but all facilities and missions remained operational. ULA and union members reached an agreement on May 19, and employees returned to work on May 21.

In May 2018, ULA and Aerojet Rocketdyne announced an agreement to co-develop a cryogenic rocket engine, called RL10C-X, to replace the latter company's RL10 for the Vulcan Centaur upper stage. Deals of the ten-year agreement were not disclosed, but 3D printing will be used to reduce manufacturing costs. ULA had worked with XCOR Aerospace on an engine for Vulcan's upper stage, until the latter company went bankrupt in November 2017. Aerojet Rocketdyne's AR1 and Blue Origin's BE-4 competed to power the Vulcan's first stage. In September 2018, ULA announced its selection of BE-4 engines to power the rocket's first stage.

In October 2018, the U.S. Air Force announced ULA as a winner of the Launch Service Agreement (LSA) contract for $976 million to build the Vulcan-Centaur launch system, following Congress' mandate to eliminate Atlas V's reliance on RD-180 engines and the retirement of Delta IV.

References

Discussion of article edits suggested by paid editor

Can editors please review the proposed changes and update the article? This content gives readers a better summary of ULA's history than the current version. I believe the sources are appropriate for Wikipedia. @Rowan Forest: In February, you updated the article based on a previous request so I'm hoping you might be able to take a look at this request too. @N2e, Appable, A2soup, Cincotta1, and Fcrary: I am putting this request on your radar as well since you've made recent edits to the article. Thank you again. ULA christa (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a problem with this ULA christa. Wikipedia is not a platform to have specific article wording be written by someone who is a paid editor. We have a guideline specifically about that. I do appreciate you disclosing your conflict of interest however. Personally, I'd be much more comfortable if a person with a conflict of interest were to present facts on the Talk page about why something in the article is untrue/not-verifiable, or why something is WP:UNDUE or not a neutral point of view, or why some particular fact or set of facts (with good secondary sources) might be missing in the article prose and might beneficially improve the article if it were considered. But then leave it up to volunteer Wikipedia editors to remedy or not remedy the deficiencies you perceive. I'd even look seriously at such an approach. I am not personally comfortable with someone who is paid by a corporation suggesting specific rewrites of text as you have suggested here. Other editors mileage may vary. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think that these kinds of suggestions are wholly inappropriate for a paid editor to make. Personally, I agree with the conclusions in WP:criticism#"controversy" section (namely that 'mixed bag' titles like 'controversy' should be avoided) and would like to see these changes implemented. However, since wp:crit is an essay, not official policy, I agree with N2e below that the appropriate place to build consensus for these changes would be at talk:United Launch Alliance. @ULA christa: would you be okay with copying the suggestion to that page? --Cincotta1 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are fairly extensive changes, and I agree it should be discussed on the article's talk page. But other than that, I'm comfortable with the way ULA christa is doing things. I regard her suggestions as exactly that: suggestions. If I agree the content should be added, I'm free to reword or paraphrase as I see fit. If someone else puts it in and I disagree, I edit that. This is much better than people with a conflict of interest making anonymous changes. Fcrary (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for the replies. You are absolutely correct these should be on the talk:United Launch Alliance page, not here. I have moved the request over to that page.ULA christa (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Proper location for a discussion of proposed changes to an article

Hi ULA_christa

I see you have, above, on your personal Talk page made extensive suggestions for changes to a specific Wikipedia article in the article space.

I'm of the view that the proper place for such a proposal, and discussion, is on the article Talk page. That way, ANYONE who was interested in the article subject might easily become involved in the discussion, and not merely the set of editors you personally invited to your personal Talk page. If you move the discussion there, and let me know about it, I will endeavor to join the discussion fully, as I did here prior to realizing this was on your Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)