Talk:E. T. Whittaker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 03:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I have begun reviewing this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

A frustrating case: many parts of the article are very good, but some aspects are the opposite

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few prose and MoS issues with layout, see below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Significant parts of the article are unsourced, several copyvio issues identified, also some MoS issues with references, see below for all

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There are some tone issues that get into neutrality, see below

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Caption might be a bit long, might be able to get a second image, see below

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Not prepared well enough in places for GA yet. But the potential is definitely there for GA on a subsequent nomination.

Prose issues:

a highly continuous point of view in the lede – this doesn't seem right. Did you mean 'contentious'? 'controversial'?

It has been noted that the astronomy equipment was outdated ... – The 'it has been noted' seems like extraneous verbiage. Just start with "The astronomy equipment was outdated ...".

and became a convert to the Roman Catholic Church (1930) – the reader will naturally wonder what led him to convert. Was it related to his beliefs on science/philosophy/religion discussed in the rest of this paragraph or was it due to something else entirely?

American Vogue – the 'Vogue' part of this should be italicized. And both 'Vogue' and 'Nature' should be italicized later in the sentence, if they were in the material being quoted.

Whittaker died at his home, – the reader will naturally wonder what the cause of death was.

His wife and all five of his children outlived him. – This seems unexceptional, not sure why it is present.

It was noted in a 2014 biography of the book's development, – What is a biography of a book? And why is 'biography' italicized?

Honors – since this article is using British English spellings, this section should be called "Honours", and so too the spelling of that word anywhere in the article. (Note the article has "honorary" correct, no 'u' in that one.)

The "Awards and fellowships" section has four different styles for saying what an award was for – nothing, italics, regular, quote. It should be more consistent. Also, the unintroduced bullet list format is not the best. Maybe a table could be used?

MoS issues in layout and references:

The lede has a refbomb in the very first line, followed by citations of most of the contents of the first paragraph, followed by no citations at all in the second paragraph. Per MOS:CITELEAD, you can have cites in the lede or not, but it should be consistent. And if you do have them, there is no need for the overciting in the first line; I think Temple 1956 pp. 300–301 covers all of it.

The modern theories, (1900-1926) – page ranges in titles should be given using an endash, not a hyphen.

pp. 357-358 – pages ranges in footnotes should be given using an endash, not a hyphen. Some of the ones in the article are correctly doing that, but others, such as this one, are not.

12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Maidment & McCartney 2019 – Since this source is 14 pages long, its cites should be to specific page numbers within it, just as you are doing for other multipage sources, instead of this one catch-all footnote.

fn 17 says twice that it is archived, but it doesn't say what it is.

fn 24 is a bare url, needs to be formatted.

fn 42/40/41 is confusing with its nested citing – this is making reference to a textbook that's inside an encyclopedia? I'd fold all three footnotes into one, so that you don't repeat a full citation for two uses of pages within in, and make clear what this Jackson volume is that you're talking about.

Further reading – this is the wrong name for this section; since these are the sources the article is using. It should be called "Bibliography", or something like that. "Further reading" is for sources that are not used for citations in the article, but that the reader might find rewarding. If there are any of these that fit that bill, they could be put into such a section.

Sourcing issues:

There are a number of places where the article where sourcing seems to be absent. It's missing from much of the "Honours" section. And from the last sentence of the "Death and burial" section (however this Canmore database entry can be used for some of that). And from much of the "Namesakes and notable research" section. And from all of the "Awards and fellowships" section. And from some of the "Whittaker & Watson" section.

And there are other places where it's hard to tell if sourcing is missing, because it's not clear if a footnote is covering multiple sentences before it or just the sentence it's on. That's why I prefer to cite each sentence, even if it's to the same source and the footnote number repeats – but I have to concede that lots of editors disagree with me on that one.

Copyvio issues:

I've spotted three instances of copyvio trouble:

• Shortly after coming to Edinburgh, Whittaker established ... is still one of the most important works on the subject. This entire paragraph has no source but I am sure it is copied from somewhere. From the kind of language used ('of the present writer') to the date references ('which today, more than thirty years after its appearance'), it must have been written sometime in the 1950s. From a Google Books search, the original may be an article in Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to Computation: A Quarterly Journal, Volume 11, 1957. See for example this search and this search.

• Just twelve days before he died in 1956, he was elected as a corresponding member for the Geometry section of the French Academy of Sciences.[20] This is too close to the cited source, which reads "Only twelve days before his death he was elected as a corresponding member of the French Academy of Sciences for the section of Geometry." Too-close paraphrasing can be a judgment call – see some of the discussion at WP:Close paraphrasing#Example – but in this case I think it's on the wrong side of the line. If you simply give the year and drop the 'twelve days before his death' aspect, that would resolve it.

• which has remained continuously in print for over a century in lede, remaining continuously in print for over a century.[17] in body. This is a little too close to the cited source's "has been continuously in print for more than a century."

There may be more problems along these lines in the article, I'm not sure. Instances like the second and third cases are easily fixed with a little rewriting. The first instance though is concerning. Aside from being copied, it is completely inappropriate in tone for Wikipedia. I am not sure what it is doing in the middle of a GA-nominated article ...

Neutrality issues:

The article is neutral for the most part, but I think it is a little too adulatory in certain places. For example, a world-renowned leading mathematical scholar sounds a bit over-the-top and redundant (if you are world-renowned then certainly you are a leading). Similarly , leading to a reputation that would long outlive him. is over-the-top and unnecessary; the article already makes the point that his books are still in print and influential, etc. Indeed we are told not once but twice of his "celebrated" books lest we miss it. There are plenty of awards and honors and quotes from others in the article that will attest to Whittaker's stature; there is no need for extra icing in the Wikipedia voice.

On the converse, the article seems a little defensive about Whittaker's role in the special relativity priority controversy. The lede is worded strangely in this respect, with not just one but two "aside from" phrasings. The section on the controversy is reasonable neutral at the start, but then it gives Truesdell's defense of Whittaker, which says that he was fighting 'recollection and folklore and professional propaganda'. Right after that the text says that scientific consensus supports Einstein. But what readers may gather from this sequence of statements is that this particular scientific consensus is comprised of fools and that Whittaker was right.

In which case you need to give an opposing view. I own Abraham Pais' Subtle is the Lord biography of Einstein, and on page 168 he states that both he and others consider the original through-1900 edition of Whittaker's History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity to be "a masterpiece". But of the later volume that takes the subject to 1926, Pais says, "His treatment of the special relativity theory [in it] shows how well the author's lack of physical insight matches his ignorance of the literature." In other words, the scientific consensus on this is right and Whittaker was a fool.

Or you can leave both Truesdell and Pais out, and let people click on the detail article on it if they want to read the whole long tale. That might be the best approach here. In any case, the defensiveness is unnecessary. Even if Pais is right, it does not invalidate anything else that Whittaker did; Whittaker would hardly be the first scientist or mathematician or academic to be world-class in topics A, B, and C, but mess up when they tried to talk about D.

Re images:

The top image caption is pretty lengthy. It doesn't bother me, but I have seen some other editors out there who will shorten it or remove it altogether.

This St Andrews colloquium photo from 1913 is probably usable because it is so old. Whittaker is very visible in it (leftmost in the front row) and it would be a good addition to show him at a younger age and engaged in a common academic activity.

In sum, this is a frustrating case, because a lot of this article is well done and compelling but some aspects of it are unfortunately suspect or weak. I definitely think it can be brought to the GA level, but it needs some sustained attention to sourcing and copyvio and neutrality it order to be ready for another try. So for this nomination, I am marking it as a fail. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: thank you for your careful review. I was late to the game on this article and did a lot of work on the biography section but I can see now there is a ton of work left. I will get right on these and renominate the article once I have addressed all of your concerns. Thanks again! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: I have made vast changes that address almost all of your concerns. If you happen to notice anything else that can be improved, please let me know! Some notes: I can't find his cause of death yet, no idea what made him convert, it is called a "biography" both in the title and in the work, because the book has had such a long life, I put in quotes instead of italicize. I think years use dashes too, but 1900 through 1926 were years not pages, and I am trying to look up about the image. Pais view was called "lamentable" by one of his reviewers, so it's best to stick with those who are a little more objective about it. I added phrasing that makes it very clear that scientific consensus is not with Whittaker on this one and removed the offending review. I think it flows a bit better now too. I will work on the namesakes section, I didn't write that and it's a bit technical, but I'll start making my way through the references to see what I can find. I would love to know if you have any more comments or concerns. Thanks again for the detailed review! Footlessmouse (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Footlessmouse: Thanks for the kind words on the review. I haven't gone over the revisions in detail but from what I can see they do address a number of the points I raised.

I didn't get into it in the review, because there were areas of greater concern, but what this article lacks is any idea of what the adult Whittaker was like. How did he go about his work as a mathematician – did he have sudden great insights, or were his discoveries the result of slow and steady progress, or did he get frustrated at a lack of progress in his thinking? (Most likely, a combination of all three.) What was he like as a teacher and a mentor? The infobox lists a number of students, including some who are well-known such as Hardy, Dyson, and Eddington – what did they think of him? Was he supportive and encouraging, or was he more the intimidating type? What was he like to work with as a colleague at the University of Edinburgh? How did Watson view him as a co-author? Apart from the special relativity business, was he ever engaged in any prominent rivalries or feuds, as many academics of that era tended to get into?

The odd thing is, the article does describe what Whittaker was like as a child, in the whole first paragraph of that section. But then that stops. The adult Whittaker is presented as little more than an endless series of appointments and accomplishments and accolades. Improving that situation would be my primary suggestion going forward. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: I have spent much time expanding the article addressing the additional suggestions. If you have time, could you let me know if you have any other suggestions? Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Footlessmouse: You've definitely expanded it in terms of giving it a picture of what he was like, and it should be more interesting to the general reader as a result.

But I think you've gone overboard on using direct quotations – in fact the number of them is so high that it could run afoul of the fair use guidelines for quotations. (I recently had to modify an article of mine when a DYK reviewer pointed out that I had four quotes in it from the same cited article, and that was too much for fair use.) A lot of the short quotations either don't need quote marks at all or can easily be paraphrased – for example "research lectures" and "outstanding" and "vacation course" and "received glowing reviews" and "unabated vigour" and "deep personal interest" and so on. And some of the longer quotations can be paraphrased as well, especially if you have two sources saying pretty much the same thing about him. Just put it in your words and cite it to both places.

The sheer number of these statements of praise also brings up considerations of neutrality – they get redundant and over-the-top, such as the "He wore his great learning lightly like a flower" one. Yikes! Isn't there something somewhere that can balance this out? There are always rivalries and petty jealousies in academia. Surely somebody besides Einstein didn't like this guy ...

The other change for the worse in my view is the introduction of a "Personal life" section. I know a lot of WP articles have them, but real biographies aren't organized like that and I never use them. A lot of what you have in that section is not exclusively personal, but the interplay between his social and professional worlds, and he was in one of those fields were those two worlds are always intertwined. I think if you cut back on the amount of praise then this section could be subsumed in the way you had it in your previous structure. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thanks again! I've removed many of the quotes and paraphrased some. Some of them like "classical side" and "research lectures" are called that in many sources, and "research lectures" is even quoted in a couple of them, so I think it appropriate to leave those as-is. I don't know what I was thinking with that flower quote, lol. Sometimes I get in a mode of doing something and I forget to consider how well it goes with everything else, I'm still pretty new here. As far as counter-balancing the views goes, I'm afraid I do not have access to any material that provides for it. As you can see, most of the literature on him comes from his multiple obituaries, that are detailed but still obituaries. The "Infinite Capacity" article provides the most detail about mundane things, that's where I got the bit about passive resistance from. I'm not sure where else to look for other disputes and such, but they are not covered by our current sources. I removed some of the scarier ones and I do not believe there would be any sort of fair use problem with the article now. The quotes still in it come from many different sources. I'm planning on resubmitting to GA again soon so I won't have to keep bugging you for further reviews, but please let me know if you happen to find anything else troublesome. Thanks again for all your help! Footlessmouse (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Footlessmouse: Hmm, I'm not sure about the two recent book covers you've added into Commons and used here. Seems to me they both contain copyrightable design elements. They could be added to Wikipedia itself and used via fair use in the articles about the books themselves – that is very common. But anyway, the next GA reviewer will examine the images as part of the GAN criteria – good luck with it! Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)