Talk:Bogdanov affair/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'm going to be reviewing this article. Since this is my first GA review, Juliancolton has agreed to look over my review before I post it here to check I'm doing things right. I'll try and be punctual, but if it becomes stale or Julian has significant problems with what I have to say then I'll relist the article so an experienced reviewer can come do it.

I'm looking forward to reading the article! Olaf Davis (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm placing this article on hold, to give time to address various issues with it which I've outlined below. Overall it's a very thorough and well-written article: I found it interesting and a pleasure to review. A lot of the points I've raised are little things which will require slight rewording, finding a few extra sources or maybe leaving out some statements that can't be verified. As I see it the only major hurdle is the amount of material sourced only to Usenet posts or other unverified online communication. Since these are so intimately connected with the Affair itself many of them can't easily be left out, but on the other hand finding reliable sources about exactly what was said on Usenet may prove difficult or impossible. The attempt can certainly be made though, probably aiming to find sources which say "yes that Usenet account is me" and perhaps also rewriting some sections to give a more general view that can be directly sourced. I hope this will be the case since as I said this is a very nice article and I'd like to see it make GA. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All the changes you've made so far look good to me, Prezbo. I'm satisfied on all the points you've replied to, except one I've commented on myself. Progress is looking good! Olaf Davis (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to close this review now, since the page has been for over a week without edits. I'm closing it as unsuccessful as some of the issues I raised - including the most central one of references to Usenet posts - still apply. I think the article's been significantly improved already by going through this review, and I'm still planning on doing some more work on the outstanding criticisms. Perhaps we can improve it enough to resubmit, but even if not the article has definitely improved and I've enjoyed the process. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry I never got around to fixing all that stuff. I'm also sorry I put this up for GA when it was clearly a lot farther away from it than I would have guessed. Thanks for your time and effort.Prezbo (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise. The article may not have got a GA badge but it got a lot of improvements from our working on it, which after all is the main point. My first (and so far only) GA submission went a similar way too - I found it quite an eye-opener about how much detail it takes to get an article just right, especially when you've been working on it so long your eyes just glide over the old mistakes. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

General comments

I don't speak French. I used Babel to translate the French sources and asked another editor for help with one. Obviously this is not ideal but I think it was sufficient to check the claims against their sources. Let me know if you think I've missed anything through this.

Quick fail criteria

None seem to be met.

Writing / grammar / MOS

• "...many physicists have alleged that the papers are nonsense, considering this evidence of the fallibility inherent within the peer review system." - This in the lede seems to neglect the people who thought that the papers were nonsense but downplayed the consequences for peer review, which the body of the article gives more weight to.
• "the debate spread to the question of whether the substitution of a "publication requirement" by university professors when they do not understand students' work is a valid means of determining the veracity of a paper." - This appears in the lede but doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the article.
• "in Igor's case, this was given only after the work was accepted for publication in respected physics journals" Does 'the work' refer to the papers of the Affair, or unrelated work from his PhD?
  • Unrelated, as far as I know.Prezbo (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• "to establish merit of his work." Does this mean he did it specifically to establish merit, or it had the effect of establishing merit in the eyes of the university?
  • It was an explicit requirement, so I guess the former. Hopefully this is clearer now.Prezbo (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• The first sentence of the Biography section runs on a bit.
  • Fixed.Prezbo (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• "the excessive use of jargon by those who study these areas" - Does 'excessive' mean 'large' or 'larger than justified'?
  • I've replaced it with 'extensive'. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• "...statements by Perimeter Institute visiting professor Laurent Freidel." - I think this could be worded slightly more clearly; it took me a second read to realise that Freidel and not the Institute was the one making the statements.
  • Done.Prezbo (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• "For months, the domain name..." - Can we say something like "for months after the internet discussion began in [date]"?
• "This decision, which excluded the Bogdanovs themselves..." - I read this several times before I realised that it meant 'they were excluded from editing', and not 'they were excluded from the list of people banned from editing'. A slight reword should help.
  • Hopefully clearer now.Prezbo (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• "At the start of the controversy in 2002, numerous articles were published in worldwide media..." I feel like this should explicitly say 'articles on the controversy' or something - it feels more natural even though it's obvious what it means currently.

Done. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Later, Majid claimed on a Usenet post that, in an addendum to Avant Le Big Bang, Grichka intentionally misquoted Majid's opinion on the way this interview had been transcribed." - I think this sentence should go to the end of the paragraph; describe the contents of the interview before the accusation of misrepresentation. This also makes "Additionally, in the same addendum..." later make more sense.

Done.Prezbo (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Majid wrote that the French version..." - Wrote should be said, since he was being interviewed not writing the article himself.

Done. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Moreover, a polite comment of physicist Peter Woit..." - I'm not sure the word 'polite' is sourced, or indeed necessary.

Removed it.Prezbo (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...thus inverting the meaning from criticism into ostensible support." - This is inline cited to the blog post itself; it should also have a cite to a third-party source. The Ciel et Espace article covers this.
• "Jacques Distler mused that the tone of the media coverage..." - Doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me.
• "The Bogdanov papers are cited a total of three times on the SPIRES database, for six published papers and one unpublished preprint." - This wording feels slightly awkward to me.

Fixed. It looks like the preprint isn't included in SPIRES.Prezbo (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• "For comparison, a recent detailed analysis of citation statistics reveals that..." - Have these values been calculated from the a and h values in the paper? Surely there must be direct citation counts out there we can source? And why do we compare them to such high standards instead of lectureships or professorships?

Direct citation counts are probably out there but so far I haven't found any. I don't think a comparison is strictly necessary, so I'm just going to remove this for now.Prezbo (talk)

• "Before the controversy arose, the scientific community had shown practically no interest in the Bogdanov papers" - Needs slight rewording to avoid confusion over whether 'the contrvoersy' refers to the ekpyrotic universe.

Done.Prezbo (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "according to Stony Brook physics professor Jacobus Verbaarschot" - We should probably mention his connection to the brothers' theses.

Done.Prezbo (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "have lost too much face for this to be a plausible course of action." - Needs to be clarified that "this" means "revealing it was all a hoax like Sokal's".

Done. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• The following terms should be briefly explained when used:

• SPIRES

New wording is fine. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• the Foucault pendulum experiment
• initial singularity

• "Grichka's construction yields a bialgebra which is not necessarily a Hopf algebra" - Comes a bit out of the blue. Perhaps it could be reworded to give something along the lines of "The paper claimed to demonstrate a fact about a type of mathematical structure called Hopf algebras, but according to Calaque..."

Accurate and verifiable

General comments on sources

• Some statements are sourced to John Baez's personal web pages. It's my judgement that this is sufficient, per WP:SELFPUB, to source claims of the kind "Baez said that the Bogdanovs were very naughty", though not of course "The Bogdanovs were very naughty" or "The Bogdanovs said that they like ice-cream". Specifically, I'd say that the fact the pages are hosted on his institution's website under the user name 'Baez' is enough guarantee of authenticity to use for such claims.

• I've now found a reliable source verifying that it's his: [1].

• Similarly, Calaque's page seems to be genuinely his.
• Sokal's web page, is verified as genuine by the NYT here.
• Lots of the references are to Usenet threads - which are self-published and pretty difficult to verify the authorship of. Baez claims responsibility for some of the postings on his site so perhaps those are fine (although then we're using reliable sources to verify self-published sources which verify other self-published sources - is that thin ice?). But the other Usenet posts, including those claiming to be from the Bogdanovs, need to be so attributed by reliable sources before we can source statements from them.
• Can we find any corroboration that the letter signed 'Paul Ginsparg' is actually from him?

I think a letter to the NYT should be given the benefit of the doubt, but we could write "In a letter to the New York Times, Paul Ginsparg wrote..." and let readers decide.Prezbo (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too picky. Yes, let's go with your suggestion. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• How do we know that pdfs of referees' reports are genuine?

They're hosted on John Baez's website and he says they're genuine, presumably we can take his word for it? If not, we can note the source.Prezbo (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure we can (in a WP:V sort of a way, of course - I trust him myself but that's a lower standard), especially since he could be seen as having an interest it making it sound like the referees agree with his assessment of the article. But then constantly parroting 'Baez says that the referees...' would be a bit silly. I wonder how feasible it would be to get the journals to verify them... Olaf Davis (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can we find proof somewhere that this is really Urs Schreider's blog, or that this is Motl's?

I think if a blog is maintained for a long time it should be assumed to be genuine anyway, but this CBC story refers to Motl's blog (the post it quotes is here). Urs Shreiber's old blog (the one cited in this article) is on the UTexas physics department's website, as is his current blog (linked on his homepage); it seems unlikely to be fake.Prezbo (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd missed the fact that Schrebier's is on the UTexas site. I'm happy with both of those sources now. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm willing to accept the Arbcom ruling as a source for what the Arbcom said.
• Reference 42, in the Ciel et Espace archives, needs registration. Could someone get hold of the relevant bit of the article so I or someone else can confirm it supports the bit about the lawsuit?

I found another reference about it.Prezbo (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So I saw, thanks. It does indeed verify the statement - and we can leave both in for people who happen to be subscribers. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Specific points

• "The Yurievich Bogdanov twin brothers were born on 29 August 1949 in the Commune of Saint-Lary in the Gers, which is part of the Gascony region of southern France, to Yuri Mikhailovich Bogdanov, born in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg), and wife Maria Dolores "Maya" Kolowrat, born in Basel." Noneof this seems to be mentioned in the references - where did it come from? Can it be cited?
  • The information about their parents was originally cited to these genealogy sites that I removed because I didn't think they were reliable: [2], [3]. Maybe I was wrong and they are reliable, otherwise it probably can't be cited.Prezbo (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that they don't look reliable. A bit of a shame to have to remove the information, but it's hardly central to the article. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• "in the early 1980s began a career in television" - the source says "popular television show in the 1970's and 80's", which seems to contradict this.
  • Fixed. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• "This programme, which covered topics in popularized science and science fiction, earned them a considerable amount of celebrity" - I don't see either the topic of the programme or the 'considerable amount of celebrity' in the source cited here. The Le Monde article says science fiction but not the rest.
  • Fixed. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Temps X continued for ten years..." - The source talks about a show started in 1980 which continued for 10 years. Do we know this is Temps X? It seems likely but given this confusion about 1980 / the 70s I'm not sure...
  • Fixed. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• "...and was followed by other shows in the same genre." - Is 'in the same genre' justified by the source?
  • The problem is that the Chonicle says Temps X started in 1980 but most other sources say it started in 1979. If anyone speaks German it seems like this is saying that their shows combined science and science fiction, but otherwise the NYT and the Chronicle at least say that they were about science.Prezbo (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Having investigated a bit more I agree that the Chronicle is probably mistaken about it starting in 1980. In fact my four bullet points above are all satisfied. Good work! (Edit: oh, and my German's good enough to confirm that the Wissenschaft article does say science and science fiction.) Olaf Davis (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, reporter Richard Monastersky noted that the back cover of the Bogdanovs' 1991 book Dieu et la Science (God and Science) claimed that the brothers held doctorates when they did not." - This makes it sound as though Monastersky was the one who noticed the inaccuracy, but the source itself makes it seem more like Monastersky's reporting a statement by Trinh X. Thuan.

FixedPrezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "This book provoked a dispute of its own in 1992" - Is this based on the 2002 Chronicle article saying "a decade ago", or is there a firmer source for the date?

Probably the former. I deleted the date.Prezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...rewrite his thesis, emphasizing the mathematical portions over the physics content." - The source mentions toning down the physics but not emphasizing the maths.

Removed that clause.Prezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "On the same day, Igor Bogdanov failed the defense of his thesis" - I can't find which source says it was the same day.

Removed it.Prezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Grichka Bogdanov received the rare low passing grade of "honorable"" - 'rare' doesn't seem to be referenced here, but it is in the Times article. Another cite to the latter should be added for this sentence.

Fixed--I reworked this paragraph.Prezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The two brothers published a total of six papers..." - This paragraph is uncited, except for the Usenet posting, so I'm not sure which source to check it in.

Fixed.Prezbo (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto the following paragraph except a cite to a private blog post - is this the private of the 'private and public apologies' or something else?

Fixed. I'm citing Baez as a source for the fact that he received copies of Niedermayer's email.Prezbo (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "defended his thesis three years later on a different topic under the direction of two advisors" - I couldn't find this in the sources; it should be more clearly cited.

Fixed. The Chronicle mentions that Verbaarschot and Sternheimer were his advisors, but I don't think it really matters that he had two advisors rather than one.Prezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The brothers' thesis reports, of which there were seven in total..." - This sentence and the three bullet points below are unsourced except to a Usenet posting.

Deleted all this. The thesis reports apparently were once online[4] but aren't anymore.Prezbo (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Of the seven thesis reporters, only Jackiw publicly defended his evaluation." - I don't think this is sourced.

Deleted.Prezbo (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "In May 2001, the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity (CQG) reviewed an article... The paper was accepted by the journal seven months later." - Both of these need cites.
• "However, after the publication of the article and the publicity surrounding the controversy, mathematician Greg Kuperberg posted to Usenet a statement written by Andrew Wray and Hermann Nicolai..." - Need a reliable source saying that this Usenet posting is actually from Wray and Nicolai. Also "after the... publicity surrounding the controversy" strongly suggests it was the publicity that prompted the statement; unless a source says so explicitly perhaps it should be replaced with "after... several readers contacted the journal".
• "The paper in question has, however, not been withdrawn by the journal. Later, the editor-in-chief of the journal issued a slightly different statement on behalf of the Institute of Physics, which owns the journal, in which he insisted on the fact that their usual peer-review procedures had been followed, but no longer commented on the value of the paper. In particular the sentences "...it does not meet the standards expected of articles in this journal" and "The paper was discussed extensively at the annual Editorial Board meeting ... and there was general agreement that it should not have been published" were removed." - This is all cited to reference 11, which is broken.
• Even if we accept the referees' reports from the Czechoslovak Journal of Physics and Chinese Journal of Physics, the statement that the papers were indeed published is unsourced.
• "Several of the published papers are nearly identical..." - This paragraph is uncited.
• "After the start of the Usenet discussion, most comments were critical" - Needs a cite
• "Woit later devoted a chapter of his book Not Even Wrong (2006) to the Bogdanov Affair." - Cite.
  • Managed to find a chapter list on the Barnes and Noble site. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Nobel laureate Georges Charpak stated on a French talk show that the Bogdanovs' presence in the scientific community was "nonexistent" - Sourced to a television programme, which I can't verify. Is there any way to get a transcript, or an equivalent statement by Charpak in print?
• "The most positive comments about the papers themselves came from string theorist Luboš Motl.", and later "As mentioned above, among the most positive comments on the papers came from physicist Luboš Motl" - Need a cite as 'most positive'.
• "the Bogdanov brothers have often participated in the discussions, both under their real names, and under several pseudonyms. Most of the pseudonyms were the names of other physicists or mathematicians, purportedly defending the Bogdanovs' work and sometimes insulting their critics, among them the Nobel prize recipient Georges Charpak." - If we neglect the blog, this is sourced only to the Acrimed article. I'm not convinced that all the claims in this sentence are backed up by it - including "under their real names", "Most of the pseudonyms were the names of other...", and "sometimes insulting their critics". I'm going to seek the comments of someone who speaks French better than I.

• I asked for JamesBWatson's input on this. He's made these changes to the article. If you disagree with his interpretation we can discuss it.

• The passage "At the start of the controversy in the moderated group... any real scientific value." is sourced only to a Usenet thread as far as I can see.
• "In addition, the paper claimed, the Foucault pendulum experiment "cannot be explained satisfactorily in either classical or relativistic mechanics"." - This should be cited to the paper itself, not Baez's website.
• Everything else from "Participants in the discussions..." to "explaining the origin of inertia" is sourced only to Usenet.
• The whole paragraph on Schreiber's analysis is sourced to his blog - which is fine if we know it's really his, as I said above. Assuming we do I think the cite (27) should be copied to the end of the first sentence, because it currently looks like the whole paragraph is uncited.
• "...since the paper is manifestly not a string theory treatise..." - This is unsourced.
• "The Bogdanovs themselves described Schreiber's summary as "very accurate"" - This appears to be unsourced, both here and where it appears further down.
• "The main result of this paper is that this thermodynamic equilibrium should be a KMS state." - This paragraph is sourced to one of the referees' reports; see my concern about these above.
• "Claims of pseudonymous activity" - This entire subsection is sourced to Usenet, a blog post, and a broken link (32).
• "At the beginning of 2004, Igor Bogdanov began to post on French Usenet physics groups and Internet forums, continuing the pattern of behavior seen on sci.physics.research." - Unsourced.
• "Igor Bogdanov and his supporters began to edit that encyclopedia..." - 'And his supporters' is not mentioned in the sources.
• "...to ban everyone determined to be a participant..." - 'Determined to be a participant' sounds a bit weasely to me (unless it's a direct quote from somewhere and I've missed it).

It almost is--the decision says that all participants are banned and then describes the "criteria for determining external involvement."Prezbo (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see: it's 'determined' as in 'deemed'; I interpreted it as in 'well, if you're determined to keep annoying me...'! Olaf Davis (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...from editing material concerning it." - Specifically, from editing this article - not mentions of it elsewhere.

Fixed.Prezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...excluded the Bogdanovs themselves along with several supporters and a few vocal opponents..." - I'm not sure we can source this since Arbcom didn't say they were supporters and detractors.

Removed it.Prezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Baez observed on his website how for some time..." - 'Observed' makes it sound like we're confirming that he was right, which I'm not sure any reliable sources actually do.

Fixed.Prezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "At the start of the controversy in 2002, numerous articles were published in worldwide media..." - Is there a reason only some of these are directly cited?
• The following statements need citing, unless I've missed them somewhere in the sources:

• "In 2002, the Bogdanovs launched a new weekly TV show..."

• Actually [5] says that Rayons X started in 2002, though I'm a little confused by the use of the word 'magazine'. Can that also mean a television programme in French?

• "August 2004, they presented a 90-minute special cosmology program in which they introduced their theory among other cosmological scenarios."
• "They were also frequently invited to numerous TV talk shows to promote their book."
• "a commercially successful popular science book,"
• "...where they also presented their point of view about the affair."
• "Both the book and the Bogdanovs' television shows have been criticized for elementary scientific inaccuracies"
• "...which the Bogdanovs allege to be an editorial misprint"
• "an assumption that the limit of a decreasing sequence is always zero"

• "A journalist from Ciel et Espace interviewed Shahn Majid" - This is in one of the refs but needs an inline citation.
• "Later, Majid claimed on a Usenet post..." - Sourced only to Usenet.
• "In December 2004, the Bogdanovs sued Ciel et Espace for defamation..." - This paragraph is sourced to the Ciel et Espace article which I can't access (see above). It would be even better if we could source it to somewhere that wasn't a party to the suit as well. Also it should probably link to the article they sued over for reference.

There's another reference now, although it doesn't mention the date when the suit started. What the article said before about the verdict was, in fact, wrong.Prezbo (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...implying that it has become impossible to distinguish a valid paper from a hoax. Overbye's article in the New York Times voiced this opinion, for example, as did Declan Butler's piece in Nature." - I feel that this is giving too much credit/blame for these conclusions to the authors of these articles, and not enough to the physicists they interviewed. While there's obviously some editorial line being taken, the sentence in the article implies more than the news articles do, I think.
• "Posters on blogs and Usenet used the affair to criticize the present status of string theory; for this reason, Woit devoted a chapter of Not Even Wrong, a book strongly critical of string theory, to the Affair." - The former half of this is unsourced, but assuming the statement about Woit's book to be true a cite to it should be fine as verification.
• "physicist Steve Carlip remarked" - Sourced only to Usenet.
• "Following Carlip's logic, one can infer a measure..." - The way this is phrased makes it feel a bit ORy. I'm not saying it is OR because looking at their citation history is clearly a sensible thing to do, but I think this could be reworded to make it sound less like we're arbitrarily following the advice of his Usenet post.

Removed this. Since the Chronicle article says the same thing Carlip's could be removed if necessary.Prezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...for six published papers and one unpublished preprint." - I don't see the preprint listed on SPIRES.

Fixed.Prezbo (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...somewhat controversial cosmological model known as the "ekpyrotic universe"..." - We should cite or reword 'controversial'.
• "The Bogdanovs have not, at the time of writing..." - We should probably give a specific date here since 'the time of writing' is non-obvious for a Wikipedia article.

Fixed.Prezbo (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...they have founded the International Institute of Mathematical Physics..." - Do we have a cite that they founded it?

Deleted.Prezbo (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Despite the similarity of name, this is unaffiliated with the reputable..." - Is there any reason to bring up the connection? Lots of institutes of this type have similar names and making the comparison could be seen as implying that they deliberately aped the name to suggest affiliation.

Deleted.Prezbo (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Jadczyk has published two papers in peer-reviewed journals claiming this institute as his affiliation." - I only see one, "Piecewise Deterministic Quantum Dynamics and Quantum Fractals on the Poincare Disk", which lists his affiliation as the university of Wroclaw.

I just deleted this whole passage.Prezbo (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• The passage "Several sources have referred to the Bogdanov Affair as a "reverse Sokal" hoax ... even the front page of the New York Times." is sourced to a book co-authored by Sokal. It should be sourced to third-party publications, which ought to be easy to do given the amount of publicity the hoax received.
• Ditto the passage below, "Alan Sokal was an outsider to the field ... Sokal published the article to expose the weakness of the journal's editorial process."
• "although the bona fides of their credentials are a bone of contention." - Although this is established above, I think we should have a repeated cite here to one of the sources discussing the withdrawal of support from their thesis reporters
• "Replying on sci.physics.research..." - How do we know it was Sokal?
• "Baez, one of the first to make the comparison..." - Is this sourced to anything besides his having started the Usenet post?

• The following links are broken for me:

• Link 22, "Anti hoax"
• 32, "NIC.lv DNS information for phys-maths.edu.lv"
• 38, "Europe One broadcast"
• Link three is now dead for me, though I'm sure it worked before. I can't find it by searching either, though I did get this in the same paper... Olaf Davis (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Broad

• "After a legal battle in France, Thuan and the Bogdanovs settled out of court, and the Bogdanovs later denied all wrongdoing." - I think we should mention that the judge ruled against them before the out-of-court settlement.

Neutral

• "The Bogdanovs have alleged several times..." - 'Alleged' sounds weasely.
• "Furthermore, as physicist Aaron Bergman pointed out while reviewing Not Even Wrong..." - This is taking the position that Bergman's view is correct, in a way that we don't for the contrasting viewpoint. (I also think this block-quote is a bit long - we don't need to quote the whole paragraph to get his point across).

Stable

No evidence of edit-warring, other disputes, or violations of the ArbCom ruling on this article in recent months.

Images

All look fine to me, but I'm far from an expert in image policy so there's a chance I've missed some subtelty.