Talk:John Archibald Wheeler/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 01:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take a look at this one, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 01:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1. Although technically not part of the GA criteria, there are three deadlinks according to the checklink tool, which would benefit from being addressed based on the suggestions from WP:DEADREF.
2. One of the doctoral students (James Griffin) leads to a disambiguation page. This link should point to the correct individual or should be removed if the individual lacks a Wikipedia page.
3. In the lead, it is mentioned: "One of the later collaborators of Albert Einstein, he tried to achieve Einstein's vision of a unified field theory." Per WP:LEAD, all information in the lead should be contained in the body of the article, and this information is not present there.
4. The organization of the lead as a whole is somewhat chaotic, which makes it difficult to read. A chronological format might be helpful here, since that is the form that the body takes, and the lead is intended to summarize the body.
5. Under "Early career", second paragraph: "Heisenberg developed the idea of the S-matrix in the 1940s." At this point, however, you haven't introduced or linked to Heisenberg, so the uninformed reader is not going to know who he is.
6. Same section, final paragraph: "One of Wheeler's most unusual ideas came to him in 1940." The seems like somewhat of a POV statement (unusual by who's definition?) Is there some way to modify this paragraph by either changing or removing this statement?
7. Under "Geometrodynaics", first paragraph: "He found that the smallest geon was a toroid the size of the Sun, but a millions heavier." Without being able to read the source, I can't tell what the missing word(s) should be.
8. Same section, second paragraph, there's a commented out part that I assumed was removed due to a lack of sourcing. In relation to the GA criteria, if it can't be sourced, it should be removed. If there's some other reason it's commented out, then it should be made clear.
9. Under "Quantum", first paragraph: "Recognizing Wheeler's colorful way with words, characterized by such confections as "mass without mass", the festschrift honoring his 60th birthday was entitled Magic Without Magic: John Archibald Wheeler: A Collection of Essays in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday (1972)." I'm not sure if it's because it is perhaps less encyclopedic in tone, or just POV, but this sentence really stands out to me as differing from the tone of the rest of the article and disrupting the flow. At the very least, it contains a lot of things that could be potentially challenged (that he had a "colorful way with words", that 'mass without mass' with something he said, etc.), so maybe even citing the publication itself as a direct inline citation would be helpful here, but it needs something.
10. Under "Quantum", fourth paragraph: "Unlike some scholars, Wheeler gave a high priority to teaching. Even after he became a famous physicist, he continued to teach freshman and sophomore physics, saying that the young minds were the most important." The "Unlike some scholars" sounds a but POVish, but I'm more concerned with "Even after he became a famous physicist". I think it could be reworded to sound more neutral, like "Even as his career developed", but less awkward-sounding.

I also went through and did a copyedit and made some minor MOS style changes, hopefully nothing too controversial. I will need to check references as well, but I will do that once the above concerns have been addressed and, since there are only a few online sources, I doubt that there will be any problems. I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 21:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1. The three deadlinks are all in the external links section. I probably could recover them from Wayback, but I don't think we need them that much
2. James J. Griffin is the professor emeritus of physics at the University of Maryland. He is notable, but has no article. So I've removed him from the list. I have plenty of information about him, but no personal information, so cannot create an article on him.
3. Removed this from the lead.
4. Reordered the lead
5. Linked Werner Heisenberg so people don't think he was the one from Breaking Bad. Also linked divergence, as I'm not sure everyone knows what this is.
6. I would think the on-electron universe is bizarre by any standard but reworded
7. "He found that the smallest geon was a toroid the size of the Sun, but a millions of times heavier."
8. Yeah, I commented out that text because I could not find a source to it. Removed.
9. "Alluding to Wheeler'"mass without mass", the festschrift honoring his 60th birthday was titled Magic Without Magic"
10. At the research universities I attended, academics were selected based on their research work, and teaching undergraduates was not something most enjoyed or excelled at. Famous names seized the opportunity to get out of it entirely. I don't consider this to be POV, because I can back it up. cf Ramsden, Paul; Moses, Ingrid (1 April 1992). "Associations between research and teaching in Australian higher education". Higher Education. 23 (3). Kluwer Academic Publishers: 273–295. doi:10.1007/BF00145017. ISSN 0018-1560.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Re-worded to Wheeler gave a high priority to teaching, and continued to teach freshman and sophomore physics, saying that the young minds were the most important.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting with regards to the last issue; if you can back it up (as it appears that you can), then I don't consider it POV either! Regardless, although a review of the sources suggests that this article could (and should) be expanded for an FA nomination, I see no obvious lacunae that would prevent it from becoming a Good Article (although the collaboration with Einstein would be something worth including if it could be sources). Therefore, I am going to go ahead and pass this as a Good Article so congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Canadian Paul 00:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! I regret that I will not be able to nominate the article for FAC, as other articles have higher priority. I will update it as material comes to hand. For Wikipedia editors who insist that if you can understand something, you can explain it, the second paragraph of Isidor Isaac Rabi#Molecular Beam Laboratory is a must. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)