Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2014

Notified the WikiProjects listed at

talk) 17:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Sandy, I'll remedy that and contact the associated WikiProjects forthwith. --
  talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. --

talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It may well have been rewritten, but it needs to be rewritten again, properly this time. Eric Corbett 19:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why are you trying to pin the blame on me for your own indolence/incompetence? You've had plenty of time to fix this article, but you haven't done it. Eric Corbett 20:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I agree with your general point, but this is a special case I think. An important living physicist whose article is proposed to appear on the main page in a few weeks time, when even the article's main contributors acknowledge that it is deficient and shouldn't have been passed as an FA. Eric Corbett 20:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. The purpose of FAR is to review an article, not to delist it. Nor is it to review the previous review process. There is no "keep" or "delist" voting. It follows the same pattern as FAC, except that there is no nominator, so Everyone who comments here is volunteering to work on the article. An actionable list of issues will be produced, and we will work on them. Although the procedure says "two to three weeks", FACs rarely take less than a month these days, so it is unlikely to appear as TFA in 2013. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how it works. After two or three weeks this nomination will become a removal candidate if it's not substantially improved before then, and then it will become a vote. Eric Corbett 23:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. It will not automatically become a FARC; that is up to the delegates. And that will not happen without a proper review at this stage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Time will tell. See you at the FARC. Eric Corbett 23:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Will you guys focus less on the pissing-contest rhetoric and just put a list of things that you find wrong with the article already. If
  talk) 23:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If they could do it then they would have done it. The whole thing needs rewriting. Eric Corbett 23:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, I'd think this GA is of better quality and could be a model:
  talk) 00:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

One other thing I'd mention is that probably because it's structured chronologically from top to bottom it's become quite choppy with "this happened" and "that happened" because the structure lacks flexibility. The structure, too, I think makes it difficult to set out his scientific achievements in a coherent fashion. Finally I'd note that from looking at the FAC and this version that passed, Slp1 wasn't the nominator and should be commended for the repair work that has been made so far, and from what I can see in history seems to have been made last year in response to a similar TFA request. Anyway, we need lots of concrete examples and reasons to delist so here's a start. Unfortunately I won't be able to help but I can't see this being done quickly and don't think it should be rushed. Victoria (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about mixing personal and professional events. However, having written a great many biographical articles, I have found that most reviewers frown on a topical structure and insist on a chronological come Hell or high water. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Take a look at Margaret Thatcher for instance. Eric Corbett 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Not the best example. Apart from the fact that it's not a featured article, it has a strict chronological framework, subdividing the prime ministership into topical sections. That's fairly normal for someone whose career spans a number of topics. But her personal life is not separately treated. I don't think it will work for Hawking in any case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy and that's why, well, it's tricky. I've done it for writers i.e,

The Brothers Grimm - okay not FAC but I dislike FAC and it's a decent page; and for a historical bio Isabeau of Bavaria, which is FAC and has a section about an illness. In the latter example, I bundled together the issue of the illness into a single section, chronologically when it first appeared but bringing it much past the chronological point so that sections overlap chronologically - which I think is the only way to structure. With the writers, Hemingway and the Grimms, I followed a chronological structure for the life/biography and split out sections for works - which here would be sections for his work in physics. Finding a good structure is difficult, takes time and lot of experimentation and patience, but it's definitely necessary for a figure such as Hawkins. Victoria (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It's an example you ought to look at more closely Hawkeye7, else this article will lose its star. Eric Corbett 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing research on Hawking at the library. I went to the Wikipedia page and skimmed through it. It's very disjointed and choppily written. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that it had the bronze star. Officialpubliclibrary (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a serious OH&S issue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - per
  WP:LEADCITE, that string of nine cites in the lead should probably move elsewhere or be condensed into one or two cites at the very least. – Connormah (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include comprehensiveness, referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delist Those people who commented above are very experienced writers, who are able to spot when an article is not up to standard. Im inclined to agree with them, this doesnt deserve our star. Beerest 2 talk 03:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Beerest, please provide reasons related to the
  featured article criteria for why you think the article should be delisted. This is a discussion, which will be closed based on the criteria raised, not a vote. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Im pretty sure I already said why - I agree with the above users that the article does not meet the FAC criteria of being well written and engaging. Theres nothing more to get. Beerest 2 talk 19:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I cannot agree that the article is not up to standard. It is comprehensive and fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• DELIST. I've stated generally the reasons above. I find too much wrong with this article, and it was not served well at the most recent FAC. I would have opposed this at FAC. Issues raised in previous reviews and substantive content questions discussed on the article's talk page (and in archives) still remain unaddressed--from issues raised well before the FAC nomination. I'd vote to delist based on the following: (1) Per Criteria 1A, the prose is choppy, it lacks cohesion--despite it's chronological order, the narrative is a stitched together bunch of random events. (2) Per Criteria 1B: The article focuses more on Hawking's personal life and his disability and does not adequately discuss his contributions to physics. There are several mentioned--and giving quick fly-by one-sentence explanations, but I think a section focused on describing those contributions and what they mean (i.e. how they've been refuted or supported with other research, how they contribute to the course of late 20th-century science and current research would be appropriate. There should be a section discussing his works and what they actually are about--A Brief History of Time is discussed in only a few sentences about his writings, there is nothing on its content or import of them. A big book like that should garner more than two or three sentences. Much of Hawking's cultural relevance is in how he is parodied, there should be a better section discussing this--I am not a fan of in popular culture/trivia sections, but a well written IPC section discussing these parodies and his cultural image would be appropriate. The strength of his cultural image has made him speak out on social and political image--sometimes controversially--the article only gives scant mention to these (3) Per Criteria 1C: While there are a considerable number of footnotes, in a source spot check, some of the material stated in the article doesn't match what the sources are saying (the curse of paraphrasing). (4) Because it's missing sections on important parts of his life, work and image (as proposed above), and the prose is a random series of events in chronological order, I think it fails Criteria 2A and needs to be reorganized into an appropriate structure including content as suggested herewith.--
  talk) 14:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• User:SandyGeorgia, User:John, User:Slp1, User:Eric Corbett, User:Giants2008. Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Victoriaearle, User:Connormah. Pinging in everyone who commented in the FAR section. Additional thoughts/comments/votes would be much appreciated here in the FARC section! Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. This article has been improved slightly since the last time I looked and I'd say it is now up to Good Article standard. More of Hawking's science has been brought in, and that is good in an article on a famous scientist. Unfortunately there is still some awful writing ("Awards do not pay the bills") and it has a soapy, tabloid quality that is at odds with our requirements for a Featured article. There is still too much emphasis on Hawking's disability and the chronological approach does not work well, leading to a choppy and incoherent article. Given the amount of time this has been discussed it is clear that it will not be brought to the requisite standard in any reasonable timescale. --John (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist; in addition to the significant comments above by John, we have this new issue in the lead:

• He is a vocal supporter of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.