Misplaced Pages

:Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 7 December 2013 (→Stephen Hawking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:06, 7 December 2013 by Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (→Stephen Hawking)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Pinging interested parties: Gerda Arendt, Andrew Gray, Kablammo, Montanabw, Fayedizard, Hawkeye7, Cirt, Evanh2008, Binksternet, Dodger67, GabeMc, John, Sasata, TheOriginalSoni, Kaldari, SandyGeorgia, StringTheory11, Carcharoth, Bencherlite, Dodger67, Montanabw, Cassianto — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelHenry (talk • contribs) 00:47, December 7, 2013 (UTC)
You missed Slp1 who has done most of the repair work so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Notified the WikiProjects listed at Talk:Stephen Hawking at their respective talk pages: WikiProject Biography/Science and Academia task force, WikiProject Disability, WikiProject Education, WikiProject England, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Physics and its Biographies Task Force, and WikiProject University of Oxford --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because... This article was proposed at WP:TFA/R and I stated that I would not have supported this article at FAC. FAC3 was not rigorous, and it appears that many suggestions for improving the article at past reviews and on the talk page were not addressed.

  • One commenter at WP:TFA/R stated "Talk page review after the last nomination here revealed text not supported by citations, text misrepresented by citations, BLP vios, lack of comprehensiveness".
  • Another commenter stated "no coherent description of his many scientific breakthroughs and failures. We have instead got lots of choppy chronological random events. We have more about his religious beliefs and about his disability than about his science."
  • My opposition was the first comment at the WP:TFA/R discussion in which I pointed to comprehensiveness--stating that " I see a lot of holes (thankfully not black holes): this article should have more substance on his contributions to physics, and the criticism (in some cases, refutation) of his contributions. While other articles lay out his theories at length, I am surprised by the lack of sufficient brief summaries here. There is more discussion of whether or not he believes in God than of interpreting his greatest achievements. Further, despite not being a fan of "in popular culture" sections, relevant material regarding his reception in pop culture and parodying of him should be discussed more since a large portion of his cultural relevance is not based on his science, but on the parodies"

I believe that this article should be reviewed and this article delisted. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

While the occurrence is hopefully rare, this promotion was a FAC miss. Discussion of the many issues in the promoted version, some corrections, serious deficiencies found, and the need for FAR is covered at Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive 8 and onward. Those included deficiencies in 1a prose, 1b comprehensive, 1c well researched, and 2a appropriate structure. The article was even promoted with BLP issues (since removed). Other concerns were listed at TFAR. This article did not received adequate review at FAC, and the work to bring it to standard got underway last January but has not been finished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandy. The reason this article cannot be TFA is that it is not good enough. It fails, arguably, on all criteria and needs a complete rewrite in order to pass. In the meantime, it should be delisted. --John (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You know what, I'll be honest. I'm pretty pissed off with this and the comments at TFA. It's not that I disagree that there is more work to be done to the article, because all that is true. It's not to FA standard..... yet. But I put a huge amount of effort to clean up the article, and if people actually knew and read the sources, as I have done, then they would know that about 4/5ths (or more) of the article now reflects the high quality secondary sources about the guy, including his life and science. But it appears that many editors (but not all) don't even notice the improvement since last year. For months, I've had notes ready to finish the bio part of the article, but do you wonder now why improving articles on WP doesn't seem really worth it anymore? When I first started here, my experience was that we worked together in a collaborative, appreciative spirit to make things better. And it just doesn't seem that way anymore....
Having got that off my chest, let's move on in a more positive direction. I think FAR is supposed to be an effort to save FAs and I don't think this article is that far from meeting the standard, now. So let's do it. I can finish the bio part in the next couple of weeks, but somebody needs to be recruited to find and summarize sources about his scientific contributions. Somebody who understands the science better that I do. I have some sources that could help with this, but it would be good to see if there are more scholarly analyses (though I actually suspect that such an academic review might more likely be produced after his death.) Could somebody here either help with this, or find a somebody (or somebodies) who can do the deed? Thank you. Slp1 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Slp1, yes, that you have improved and did most of the improvements is noted. I can and will help with everything but the specific part you request about summarizing his scientific contributions, since that is pretty well over my head. I'm unsure who we might ask on that, but what happened in the past is that the article was propelled forward by members of the Disability WikiProject, without apparently the benefit of more editors versed in the scientific content-- and I remain concerned (as I was in the first FAC) about the way the article is organized.

ColonelHenry, you were supposed to have notified relevant WikiProjects and flagged those at the top of this page; that is the first step in bringing in more topic experts to help bring the article to standard. The absence of known science editors in the history of this article is noticeable; I do see Materialscientist has been in there, but not much.

With a concentrated effort, it could be possible to bring this article to standard in time for it to appear mainpage this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, I recognize your improvement, but I disagree that FAR should standby for a couple of weeks when at the end of that couple of weeks we might not be anywhere further ensuring this article FA-worthiness. FAC3 was did not do this article any justice and given the remaining issues that were still being developed, it shouldn't have been brought to FAC ill-prepared. Its promotion reflects badly on FAC (noting that many articles barely get reviewed as compared to a year ago when there were more rigorous reviews). I wish I caught this article when it was up for FAC. While I respect your work on the article, and you may disagree on whether it's ready for prime time, it has some serious shortcomings that will take more time than you may think, and FAR isn't the place to say "wait, I'll clean it up" for a few weeks when more than a few weeks are needed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Having been through the FAR process myself with a much simpler article, Roy of the Rovers, I'm also convinced that the work needed here is far more than can reasonably be expected to be done in a couple of weeks. Eric Corbett 17:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Colonel Henry. Where did I suggest this should put on hold? Contra your statement of my positition, I also specifically said that the article was not currently at FA standard. Just to be crystal clear, I don't mind it being listed here at all. In fact I welcome it, as it may encourage editors (including myself) to actually get on with improving the article and getting it to standard. Which, contrary to your comment above, is exactly what is this place is for, so that the article doesn't have get moved to the next stage - Featured article removal candidates. See the instructions "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." What I disagreed with above with is editors who quote comments without any apparent recognition that current article is not anything close to that it was then. The fact that the FA promotion process was deficit (and I agree it was, obviously) is irrelevant because the article we are looking at now has been practically completely rewritten. Compare the promoted version with the current one. What we need to do is complete the process, with editors who are actually willing to the legwork by consulting the literature and editing. That's why we are here.Slp1 (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It may well have been rewritten, but it needs to be rewritten again, properly this time. Eric Corbett 19:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup, that's exactly the kind of unhelpful, unkind comment that makes this place not worth the bother anymore. When people ask who you've driven off the project, you can now think of me. Slp1 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Why are you trying to blame on me for your own indolence/incompetence? Eric Corbett 20:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Postpone 2 weeks – I haven't read the article and therefore cannot comment on its quality, but the first step of the review process was not completed until after the article was listed at FAR. This goes against the instructions at FAR, which state that talk page notification should be made in advance to give interested editors an opportunity to fix the article. If we're going to ignore the requirement just because an article isn't very good, then we've completely invalidated the FAR instructions. That goes even if the article takes "more than a few weeks" to fix. I could understand skipping over the step if a large portion of the article was plagarized, but that isn't the case. I would urge Dana or Nikki to take this off the main FAR page for now, and bring it back within a couple of weeks if any improvements fail to satisfy the nominator and other commenters. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    That there are serious problems with the article has been flagged up for some considerable time now, so I think a year is more than enough notification. Eric Corbett 18:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    It looks like the link Sandy posted above is good enough for notification purposes, although I'd suggest that the Colonel post such links in the nomination statement next time. Us onlookers are more likely to look for a relevant link there than in another comment. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    Agree. It's troubling. I used to keep the top of every FAR in shape, make sure notifications were done, make sure conditions were met. I don't have time to do that work anymore, but someone should. The notification was buried in archives, and the bookkeeping should be first here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    The main contributors obviously already knew that this article was deficient, or didn't care, so I'm not buying that. Eric Corbett 19:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    I agree on the specifics of this nomination, but it would still be good if FAR bookkeeping were better enforced-- note the wasted time above for Giants2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)