Wikipedia

Talk:Ibn al-Haytham/GA1

< Talk:Ibn al-Haytham
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Jagged 85 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago193 comments4 people in discussion

Since this article has been sitting on the nomination page for just forever, I figured I'd take a stab at reviewing it. I'm planning to split this up into two parts. First, I'll do a preliminary review to get the obvious stuff out of the way. After that I'll do a final review to check if there are any issues which would prevent this from being a GA. Wronkiew (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Preliminary

edit
Well written
  • Clearly there is some controversy over his nationality. This should be moved further down in the lead section. Also, ten inline citations in one sentence impairs readability. Choose the most reliable source for each case, or expand and cite it elsewhere but keep a summary of the controversy in the lead.
    • Comment: Well, there are now only 5 sources in that sentence, down from ten, so I hope that's better? Anyway, I have only been editing this article for a month and a half, so I don't know about any nationality controversy. My understanding is that sources either call him a Persian or an Arab, so both terms are used in the article's lead. I don't think this counts as a controversy, and I don't know of any sources that discuss whether he is an Arab or a Persian. I just think these two names are for similar (but not quite the same) concepts, that are both used in the article. Deamon138 (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure he needs three sources to establish that he was an Arab? Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Jagged 85 has now got it down to two sources. That any better? Deamon138 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
The discussion is here and here. The problem with the assertion that he was the "first scientist" is that it is an exceptional claim. A claim like that should be backed up with the most reliable of sources, like a peer-reviewed article or a book by a respected historian. The only source used to support the claim in this article is a review of a children's book. I would be happy if the statement were rephrased as follows: "Due to his formulation of a modern quantitative, empirical and experimental approach to physics and science, he is considered the pioneer of the modern scientific method and the originator of experimental science and experimental physics. Author Bradley Steffens describes him as the "first scientist"." Also, if it's said in the lead, it has to also be said elsewhere in the article. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Your suggestion itself is fine, and I shall change it after commenting here. However, I don't understand the rest of your comment. The first link you provided was a link to a comment by one anonymous unsigned user, and the second link has nothing to do with this source: it talks about Khaleefa, not Steffens which is the source for this. As for, "The only source used to support the claim in this article is a review of a children's book" I have to ask: what? Steffens is not a review of a children's book. It is an actual book for adults as far as I can tell. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that as a source. However, I will change it as asked. Deamon138 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Now done. Deamon138 (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
The birth place should place Basra in its historical province. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done Deamon138 (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
It does not. Generally "there" refers to a place, and "when" refers to a time. The "there" in this sentence is not referring to "classical antiquity", it's just a placeholder for a missing subject. If it referred to "classical antiquity" then the sentence could be rewritten as "In classical antiquity were two major theories on vision", which is clearly wrong. I suggest "Two major theories on vision prevailed in classical antiquity." It says the same thing with fewer words and you get an active verb instead of "were". Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ah I see what you mean. Well I think Jagged 85 has done this one. It now reads "Two major theories on vision existed in classical antiquity". That okay? Deamon138 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I think I prefer Wronkiew's version over my own. The term "prevailed" sounds more specific than "existed", since I'm sure there probably existed more than two ideas on vision in antiquity. Jagged 85 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I prefer the "prevailed" version too, I'm now changing it to that. The "existed" version one is acceptable imo, but if we all prefer "prevailed", we may as well use it. Deamon138 (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done Deamon138 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Don't use peacock terms like as "important" unless they are in a quote or adequately explained. See WP:PEACOCK.
  • Em dashes should not be spaced. See WP:MOS.
  • Add translatons for non-English terms and quotations in the article, for example "Ptolemaeus Secundus".
  • In at least three places in this article, the scientific fields to which he contributed are listed out, individually wikilinked. List them out once to establish his status as a polymath. If you need to refer to the breadth of his contributions later, either say polymath or "significant contributions in science" or something like that.
    • Comment: I can only see two occurrences of this: once in the first paragraph, and once in the List of Works section. I have removed the one in the List of Works, however I can't find the third place that you said there was. Deamon138 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Factual accuracy
Still "During his time in Iraq, he worked as a civil servant and read many theological and scientific books." Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I believe it's already mentioned in the same paragraph that Iraq wasn't a state. I don't think doing this in too many close places is necessary. Hell, Iraq and History of Iraq do worse than this. In fact those articles say that the term "Iraq" had meaning then geographically, even if the state did not exist, and I think this fits in with the meaning of this phrase here. "During his time in Iraq" is basically saying "during his time in that area" i.e. not Egypt where he later went. What do you think? If there's a guideline or policy that says that what you're asking for needs to be done in 100% of all occurrences, then fine, I'll gladly do it, but I can't find one at the moment. Deamon138 (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the term "Iraq" has always been used by the Arabs to refer to what was then Mesopotamia and what is now Iraq. There are even Arabic reports dating back to at least the 7th century which refer to the area around Basra and Baghdad as "Iraq". In that case, I don't see anything inappropriate about referring to that region as Iraq. It would also be a lot more specific to simply say "During his time in Iraq" instead of "During his time in the Persian Empire and Abbasid Caliphate". Jagged 85 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, this was pretty much what I was trying to say (only you have more knowledge on this subject than me it would seem). I don't think it hurts if we qualify some of the references to Iraq showing the state didn't exist then (like I have done with most of them) but not all of them. Deamon138 (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • The infobox has a long influenced list. In order to say that he influenced these people, they must have cited his work or at least been aware of it. That link is not proven in this article by the referenced sources in some cases, for example Isaac Newton.
  • The blockquote at the end of the Theology section needs to explicitly say what work is being quoted.
    • Question: When you say "what work is being quoted", do you mean the actual source where Ibn al-Haytham said this, or do you mean the source for that comment that's already cited? If you mean the latter, then it shouldn't be too hard, but if ou mean the former then it might be problematic. Deamon138 (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • There's a formatting error with the Columbia Encyclopedia reference.
There are two separate references to the same source in this footnote. They're online books on two different sites. Pick one and put the other URL in a comment in case the one goes away.
Done: in fact I got rid of the one link completely. If the other fails one day, the there's always the Wayback Machine. Deamon138 (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm uncomfortable with using http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Biographies/MainBiographies/A/Alhazen/1.html as a source. It has no publication information, no accountable entity, no references to reliable sources. Is it really needed? Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Nope not really. I got rid of it. In fact, cartage.org and .org.lb don't exist anymore anyway! Done Deamon138 (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Non-English quotes need a translation, for example the reference to The Great Islamic Encyclopedia.
    • Comment: I'm afraid I can't fix this one, as I don't speak the lingo. I assume I can't just bung it in Google translator, so do you know of anywhere on Wikipedia I can ask to get a translation? Deamon138 (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Don't add wikilnks to quotations.
    • Most of them are gone, but I have left one or two in, per WP:MOSQUOTE, which says, "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader", I think that there is a good reason for those that I have left in (namely that they are difficult words). Can I consider this one done? Deamon138 (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • "Review of Ibn al-Haytham: First Scientist" has two separate entries in the notes section.
  • There is not a clear distinction between the notes section and the references section. For example, Hassan (2007) appears in the references section even though there is only one reference to it without a page number. Plenty of other sources used as citations appear directly in the notes section.
    • Comment: I think that having "Hassan (2007)" and similar ones in the notes section, then an expanded cite in the references section is okay per Wikipedia:CITESHORT. If it's consistency you want, then I think Jagged 85 has gone through and done some of that. I don't know if there's any more that need doing. What do you think? Deamon138 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • "Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham" (MacTutor) appears as both a footnote and an external link.
  • Books used as references are also listed in the further reading section. For example "Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception".
  • Unnecessary weasel words. Replace "some have said" with the name of the most reliable sayer. See WP:WEASEL.
  • Numbers for multiple citations should be in order, for example fix "he feigned madness[3][1]".
  • The lead says he "retired in disgrace" but then goes on to talk about all the stuff he did while he was retired. What did he retire from?

That's all for now. I'm putting the review on hold until these issues are addressed. Keep in mind that I did not proofread the entire article, I only pointed out the things that I noticed right away. If you fix any of the issues I listed, make sure you look through the article to see if there are any other problematic cases. If you disagree with individual points, just let me know and I'll be happy to reevaluate my criticism. I look forward to seeing these issues addressed so I can make my final review and hopefully promote this article. Wronkiew (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right, I hope you can keep this on hold for me. I can fix a fair bit more of the stuff above that needs fixing, but not for a while (at least from me). I've been up all night, so I'm off to bed, and will come and do some more when I wake up! Thanks if you can hold it still. Deamon138 (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
If I think this can be fixed in a finite amount of time, then I'll be happy to extend the hold. I have not seen much activity in the past few days though. Wronkiew (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry, there will be some activity now. I've been busy in "real life" lol, but I'm back now. Right, I reckon this lot can be done in "a finite amount of time".... Here goes! Deamon138 (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Final

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  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:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Well written (prose)
  • "Although there are stories that Ibn al-Haytham fled to Syria, ventured into Baghdad later on in his life, or was even in Basra when he pretended to be insane, it is certain that he was in Egypt by 1038 at the latest." Just "later".
  • "He later traveled to Islamic Spain and, during this period, he had ample time for his scientific pursuits, which included optics, mathematics, physics, medicine, and the development of scientific methods—on all of which he has left a number of outstanding books." Break the sentence at the "and". Replace the part after the dash with "; he left several outstanding books on these subjects."
  • Both "Haytham" and "Haitham" are used in the article outside of the discussion of spelling variants. Pick one.
There are still some "Haitham"s in the external links section which are not quotes or taken from the title of the page being linked. Wronkiew (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I deliberately left those because they were the names the two sites used for him. However, I have now done them since you explicitly mention them. Deamon138 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • "The Latin translation of his main work, Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics), exerted a great influence upon Western science: for example, on the work of Roger Bacon, who cites him by name, and on Johannes Kepler." Replace "upon" with "on".
  • "The correct explanations of the rainbow phenomenon given by al-Fārisī and Theodoric of Freiberg in the 14th century were dependant upon Ibn al-Haytham's Book of Optics."
    • Comment: it might just be me, but I think that "...were dependant on Ibn al-Haytham's Book of Optics" doesn't read well." Either this should stay as it is, or go to "...14th Century depended on Ibn al-Haytham's Book of Optics". What do you think? Deamon138 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
That sounds better than my version. Wronkiew (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done Deamon138 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • "The list of his books runs to 200 or so, yet very few of the books have survived." Confusing and wordy. Maybe replace with "Although he wrote around 200 books, very few have survived."
  • "Works by Alhacen on geometrical subjects were discovered in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris in 1834 by E. A. Sedillot." The article should consistently use one variant of his name (outside the discussion of this).
  • "Ibn al-Haytham's most famous work is his seven volume Arabic treatise on optics, Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics), written from 1011 to 1021, which has been ranked alongside Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica as one of the most influential books in physics, for introducing an early scientific method and for initiating a revolution in optics and visual perception." Replace with "starting".
  • "Ibn al-Haytham's optical studies were influential in a number of later developments, including the telescope, which laid the foundations of telescopic astronomy, as well as of the modern camera, the microscope, and the use of optical aids in Renaissance art." Replace with "several".
"Ibn al-Haytham proved that rays of light travel in straight lines, and carried out a number of experiments with lenses, mirrors, refraction, and reflection." Sorry I didn't catch that one earlier. Wronkiew (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've replaced the phrase "a number of" with the term "various". Would you consider that done? Jagged 85 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • "The second theory, the intromission theory, supported by Aristotle and his followers, had physical forms entering the eye from an object." Remove the comma after "theory".
  • "Ibn al-Haytham argued on the basis of common observations (such as the eye being dazzled or even injured if we look at a very bright light) and logical arguments (such as how a ray could proceeding from the eyes reach the distant stars the instant after we open our eye) to maintain that we cannot see by rays being emitted from the eye, nor through physical forms entering the eye." This sentence is too long, unnecessarily complex, and grammatically incorrect. Without all the extra clauses, it boils down to "Ibn al-Haytham argued to maintain that we cannot see by rays being emitted from the eye, nor through physical forms entering the eye." Rewrite it without the parenthesized statements, maybe by adding sentences containing the examples. The first sentence could be "Ibn al-Haytham argued that the process of vision occurs neither by rays emitted from the eye, nor through physical forms entering it."
  • "Ibn al-Haytham developed rigorous experimental methods of controlled scientific testing in order to verify theoretical hypotheses and substantiate inductive conjectures." Replace all cases of "in order to" with "to".
  • "The concept of Ockam's razor is also present in the Book of Optics." Occam's or Okham's. Also, make the spelling consistent throughout the article.
  • "This eventually led Ibn al-Haytham to derive the earliest formula for the sum of fourth powers; and by using an early proof by mathematical induction, he developed a method that is readily generalizable to finding the formula for the sum of any integral powers." Remove the "and" or change the semi to a comma. Reword to eliminate "generalizable", maybe "can be readily generalized to find".
  • "It comprises drawing lines from two points in the plane of a circle meeting at a point on the circumference and making equal angles with the normal at that point." This sentence does not make sense to me after reading it several times.
  • "He used his result on sums of integral powers to perform an integration, in order to find the volume of a paraboloid." Replace with "to". Also, what he really did was find the volume, not perform an integration. Maybe "He applied his result of sums on integral powers to find the volume of a paraboloid through integration."
  • "Chapters 15–16 of the Book of Optics dealt with astronomy." Maybe "covered".
  • "Ibn al-Haytham was the first to discover that the celestial spheres do not consist of solid matter, and he also discovered that the heavens are less dense than the air." Break into two sentences.
  • "Besides the Book of Optics, Ibn al-Haytham wrote a number of other treatises on optics." Replace with "several".
  • "Haytham's Mizan al-Hikmah (Balance of Wisdom) dealt with statics, astrophysics, and celestial mechanics." Replace with "covered".
  • "Little is currently known about the work, except for what is known through the later works of al-Khazini in the 12th century." Remove "currently".
  • "Also in his Treatise on Place, Ibn al-Haytham disagreed with Aristotle's view that nature abhors a void, and he thus used geometry to demonstrate that place (al-makan) is the imagined three-dimensional void between the inner surfaces of a containing body." "Between" is the wrong word here. Maybe "within the surfaces".
    • Comment: I disagree. A void is between two surfaces, not within them. e.g. if we turned your room into a void (sorry about that) then the "inner surfaces" are the walls of your room inside, thus the void is "between them". Make sense? Deamon138 (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
The reason I brought this up is that "between" is used to describe a location between two things. Using it to describe a place within a volume is a little imprecise. Not a big deal though. Wronkiew (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well a void is between two things. Take the vacuum of space. The void is "between the planets" so to speak. I think that "within" can say the same thing, but it can also suggest something else. Going back to "your room" with its void, if I said the void was "within the inner surfaces of your room", it could be read as "the void is literally inside the brickwork". I think therefore, that "within" is ambiguous for this reason, whereas "between" isn't. Deamon138 (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • "This work was eventually translated into Hebrew and Latin in the 13th and 14th centuries and subsequently had an influence on astronomers during the European Middle Ages and Renaissance, including Georg von Peuerbach, among others." Maybe "astronomers such as Georg von Peuerbach during the European Middle Ages and Renaissance."
  • "Ibn al-Haytham also wrote a treatise entitled On the Milky Way, in which he dealt with problems regarding the Milky Way galaxy and parallax." Maybe replace with "wrote about".
    • Changed to "solved" as it is better than "wrote about". "Wrote about" could just mean that he talked about the problem in his writing, but didn't necessarily find an answer. Both "solved" and "dealt with" show he did find it. Done? Deamon138 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • "He wrote that if the Milky Way were located around the Earth's atmosphere, 'one must find a difference in position relative to the fixed stars.'" Replace with "was".
  • "Earth" is capitalized unless it is a synonym for "dirt".
  • "He formulated the Lambert quadrilateral, which Boris Abramovich Rozenfeld refers to as the "Ibn al-Haytham–Lambert quadrilateral", and his attempted proof also shows similarities to Playfair's axiom." Replace with "calls".
  • "Ibn al-Haytham disagreed and demonstrated that place (al-makan) is the imagined three-dimensional void between the inner surfaces of the containing body." As before, rewrite to eliminate "between".
Refer to comment above. Not a problem if it can't be fixed. Wronkiew (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • "Ibn al-Haytham wrote a work on Islamic theology, in which he discusses prophethood and develops a system of philosophical criteria to discern true prophethood from false claimants in his time." Rewrite to eliminate the second occurrence of "prophethood".
  • "He also wrote a treatise entitled Finding the Direction of Qibla by Calculation, in which he mathematically dealt with finding the Qibla, where Salah prayers are directed towards." As before, replace "dealt with" with something more specific.
  • "Not all of his surviving works have yet been studied, but some of the ones that have are given below." Replace with "all".
  • "He goes on to systemize conic sections and number theory, carries out some early work on analytic geometry, and works on 'the beginnings of the link between algebra and geometry.'" "Systemize" is not a word. Maybe "systematize"?
  • The lead for the mathematical works section is written in mixed tense.
  • Replace "geometrical" with "geometric" in "geometrical entities", "geometrical subjects", and "geometrical points"
  • There is a mixture of American and British English spellings in this article. If this article is written in British English, then, except in quotations, the following are misspellings:
    • centered→centred
    • centers→centres
    • center→centre
    • practicing→practising
    • criticized→criticised
    • characterize→characterise
    • realize→realise
    • medieval→mediaeval
  • If the article is written in American English, then the following are misspellings:
  • Some of the sentences in this article are ridiculously long. Break them up into smaller concepts. You should be able to read the sentence aloud without running out of breath. The readability of sentences is most important in the introduction.
    • "Among his other achievements, Ibn al-Haytham gave the first clear description and correct analysis of the camera obscura, enunciated Fermat's principle of least time and the concept of inertia (Newton's first law of motion), developed the concept of momentum, described the attraction between masses and was aware of the magnitude of acceleration due to gravity at-a-distance, stated that the heavenly bodies were accountable to the laws of physics, presented a critique and reform of Ptolemaic astronomy, first stated Wilson's theorem in number theory, formulated the Lambert quadrilateral and a concept similar to Playfair's axiom now used in non-Euclidean geometry, formulated and solved Alhazen's problem geometrically using early ideas related to calculus and mathematical induction, and in his optical research laid the foundations for the later development of telescopic astronomy, as well as for the microscope and the use of optical aids in Renaissance art." For a list like this, start with "Ibn al-Haytham's achievements include many advances in physics and mathematics. He gave the first clear description..."
    • "According to Matthias Schramm, Ibn al-Haytham had formulated a clear conception of the relationship between an ideal mathematical model and the complex of observable phenomena; in particular, he was the first to make a systematic use of the method of varying the experimental conditions in a constant and uniform manner, in an experiment showing that the intensity of the light-spot formed by the projection of the moonlight through two small apertures onto a screen diminishes constantly as one of the apertures is gradually blocked up."
    • "His theorems on quadrilaterals, including the Lambert quadrilateral, were the first theorems on elliptical geometry and hyperbolic geometry, and along with his alternative postulates, such as Playfair's axiom, his work marked the beginning of non-Euclidean geometry and had a considerable influence on its development among later Persian geometers such as Omar ... and ... al-... al-... and European geometers such as Witelo, Gersonides, Alfonso, John Wallis and Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri."
    • "He also carried out further observations, investigations and examinations on the anatomy of the eye, the camera obscura and pinhole camera, illusions in visual perception, the meteorology of the rainbow and the density of the atmosphere, various celestial phenomena (including the eclipse, twilight, and moonlight), refraction, catoptrics, dioptrics, spherical and parabolic mirrors, and magnifying lenses." Keep it to one list per sentence. This one has at least three.
"He analyzed the camera obscura and pinhole camera, as well as investigating the meteorology of the rainbow and the density of the atmosphere." Something is wrong here. I think you have to change "investigating" to "investigated" and probably change "as well as" to something else. Wronkiew (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done Deamon138 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • "Ibn al-Haytham's most famous work is his seven volume Arabic treatise on optics, Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics), written from 1011 to 1021, which has been ranked alongside Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica as one of the most influential books in physics, for introducing an early scientific method and for initiating a revolution in optics and visual perception."
"It has been ranked alongside Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica as one of the most influential books in physics, for introducing an early scientific method and for initiating a revolution in optics and visual perception." There shouldn't be a comma before "for".
Done Deamon138 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • "Ibn al-Haytham is regarded as the "father of modern optics" for his influential Book of Optics (written while he was under house arrest), which correctly explained and proved the modern intromission theory of vision, and for his experiments on optics, including experiments on lenses, mirrors, refraction, reflection, and the dispersion of light into its constituent colours."
The second sentence should make it clear that the recognition for his experiments is that he is known as the "father of modern optics".
Done Deamon138 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • "Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham (965 – c. 1039), was an Arab and/or Persian polymath who made significant contributions to the principles of optics, as well as to anatomy, astronomy, engineering, mathematics, medicine, ophthalmology, philosophy, physics, psychology, visual perception, and to science in general with his introduction of the scientific method."
    • "Due to his formulation of a modern quantitative, empirical and experimental approach to physics and science, he is considered the pioneer of the modern scientific method and the originator of experimental science and experimental physics."
      • Comment: I'm not so sure about re-writing "originator of experimental science and experimental physics" as "originator of experimental science and physics". The latter could easily be misunderstood as the "originator of physics". Jagged 85 (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
        • Comment: Yeah that's what I thought too when I edited it. But I can't think of another way of writing it without duplicating the word "experimental". If you have an idea, I'm all ears! However, I'm not entirely sure why this sentence is listed in this section as being too long. I think it's okay the length it is. Deamon138 (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I listed this sentence here because it is one of the longer sentences in the intro and contains multiple lists. Not a problem if you can't break it up without introducing confusion. Wronkiew (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Comment: I don't know that it can be, no. Deamon138 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I re-wrote it as "founder of experimental physics, and originator of experimental science." But now that I've read your version ("and the originator of the experimental nature of science and physics"), I think I'll probably change it to that instead. Done? Jagged 85 (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well written (MoS)
  • Simplify the language in the introduction.
    • "He studied binocular vision and the Moon illusion, described the finite speed and rectilinear propagation of light, and argued that rays of light are streams of corpuscular energy particles travelling in straight lines." Rectilinear propagation means "travelling in straight lines". That term and "corpuscular energy particles" are too complicated for the introduction.
Much better. Sadly, upon reading it, I realized that the Moon illusion is discussed in the lead and not in the rest of the article, which has to be fixed. Wronkiew (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done Deamon138 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • "Due to his formulation of a modern quantitative, empirical and experimental approach to physics and science, he is considered the pioneer of the modern scientific method and the originator of experimental science and experimental physics." Rewrite to only say "experimental" once.
Issues discussed above. Wronkiew (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
This bit is now definitely done. Deamon138 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • "He is also considered by A. I. Sabra to be the founder of experimental psychology for his experimental approach to the psychology of visual perception and optical illusions, and a pioneer of the philosophical field of phenomenology." Rewrite to eliminate the duplicated concept.
A. I. Sabra should be named in the "other contributions" section too. Sorry I didn't catch that earlier. Wronkiew (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done Deamon138 (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Verifiable (attribution)
  • Books like Verma (1969) need a publisher name, location, and some sort of id like ISBN.
  • There are still a few full source citations in the notes section. These should be moved to the references section.
    • Is this now done?
  • Some notes have lists in them which messes up the formatting. I recommend that you eliminate the lists.
Verifiable (citations)
  • "Ibn al-Haytham was one of the most eminent physicists, whose developments in optics and the scientific method were particularly outstanding." Unreferenced. Really, the article could do without this sentence.
    • Comment: it is already sourced. See citation number 10 (Deek 2004). Deamon138 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
      • On further investigation, this sentence has several problems. First, most of the sentence has been lifted from the source. The parts that have been copied need to be in quotes. Second, a claim like this, coming from a magazine article by an author of unknown qualifications, should be explicitly attributed to the claimant in the article text. Third, it is not clear whether this sentence is covered by citation 10 or if it is uncited. It's okay to repeat citations for direct quotations or for counterintuitive or exceptional claims. Finally, as explained in Avoid peacock and weasel terms, it is better to show that he is important than to say it. Starting off with "most eminent" and "particularly outstanding" tells the reader that the paragraph is going to explain how important he is. This has hopefully already been established in the lead. The paragraph is an introduction to an explanation of his legacy, so start it off with something like "Ibn al-Haythem made significant improvements in optics, physical science, and the scientific method which influenced the development of science for over five hundred years after his death."
  • "His work on catoptrics also contains the problem known as "Alhazen's problem"." Needs a citation.
  • "The Alhazen crater on the Moon was named in his honour. Ibn al-Haytham is also featured on the obverse of the Iraqi 10,000 dinars banknote issued in 2003. The asteroid "59239 Alhazen" was also named in his honour, and moreover Iran's largest laser research facility, located in the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran headquarters in Tehran, is named after him as well." Every one of these needs a citation.
Neutrality
  • Seems fine, but I want to re-read the article after some of the changes above have been taken care of.
I have read through the article again and found that it is more or less neutral. Some improvements could be made by eliminating redundant statements establishing his importance, but this does not need to be fixed for the review. Wronkiew (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Broadness
  • As someone who has had eye surgery practiced on them, I would like to know more details about his contributions to it.
    • There's some controversy as to whether al-Haytham made any contribution to surgery and anatomy. Much of his writing on this topic appears to be from Galen and I believe that dissection was not allowed at the time he was writing. Famousdog (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
      • This should be explained in the article. Wronkiew (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
        • I don't think he made any direct contributions to eye surgery (I doubt he was even an eye surgeon), but I think what the source meant was an indirect contribution through his work on physiological optics. I've removed "eye surgery" from the article but added some information on his contributions to ocular anatomy and physiological optics. Done? Jagged 85 (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Images
  • Image:Ibn haithem portrait.jpg was broken for me. There may be some copyright issues with this image which need to be addressed at commons.
It's not okay, there is a deletion discussion in progress about this image because it may be a copyright violation. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, thanks for notifying me. I've made a comment there. Anyway, what do you think about using Image:Alhazen.jpg instead of this image in this article? Deamon138 (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Same uploader, same problem. I put a tag on it so hopefully the issue gets resolved soon. Wronkiew (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
He says he's resolved the issue on your commons talk page. Satisfactory? Deamon138 (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done: swapped with the image you suggested on my talk page. Thanks for constructing and uploading it! Deamon138 (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I went through the article again for the "final" review. Also, I moved the unresolved issues from the preliminary section to the final section for convenience. There has been some good progress towards meeting the GA criteria, but there's still a ways left to go. I'll reset the hold. Wronkiew (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for the final review. There is a lot to do I see, your review is very thorough. Pass or fail, the article will be the better for this review. Cheers. Deamon138 (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Okay, I just thought I'd add a little comment here to mention the outstanding issues. We have the one on Alhazen's problem (waiting for your reply), the two ones about voids (I consider these ones fine as-is), the stuff about his religion (what Jagged 85 has done looks okay, though I assume we have to wait a bit to see if Neutrality45 comments), an explanation of the word "congruences" (not sure I can do this one), and finally the article's neutrality which you will rejudge once you're happy with everything else. Hope I've caught all the remaining issues, and that they have been adequately dealt with. Thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article now meets all the Good Article criteria. Congratulations are in order to Deamon138 and Jagged 85 for their extensive work on fixing up this massive article in a short time. Thanks to you, Wikipedia's coverage of this subject is much improved. Wronkiew (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow! That's fantastic! Thank you very much! XD
Yes, I must also thank Jagged 85 for his help, and for his work before I discovered this article as he did write a lot of it.
I also must say thanks to you Wronkiew for your extensive and detailed review. The article sure has come a long way! Cheers! Deamon138 (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Cheers! I'd like thank Wronkiew for taking the time to review this article, and I'd like to thank Deamon138 for all the effort he put in to fix up this article. Well done everyone! Jagged 85 (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ibn_al-Haytham/GA1&oldid=1136270681"