Talk:Subtle is the Lord/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

This is an interesting and well-cited article on a welcome topic.

• "Though prior to publication there were several popular biographies of Einstein, this was" -> "This was not the first popular biography of Einstein, but it was"
  • Done Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Prior to establishing a career as" -> "Before becoming"
  • Done Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• What did Penrose have to say about the book? Might be worth a mention.

• The table of contents is a bit baroque; I'm generally in favour of some such but the 31-chapter list doesn't seem to help much (and I've no idea why some of the titles are in italics either). Perhaps you could keep just the list of Sections as it gives the 'big picture' of his life and of the book; some reviewers would I think ask for the whole table to be removed.
  • I will think about it, there is content in the section that refers to the TOC, and the prose specifies that the italicized titles are italicized because they are purely biographical (no science background required) Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • As you say, the section "content" describes as much of the TOC as needs to be described, so the table is in effect redundant. I know exactly how much one wants to display a book that one has enjoyed but the table isn't adding anything for the ordinary reader. A paraphrase with highlights is more readable and generally more appropriate. You might note, too, that the OUP website give the Table of Contents as just the top 8 headings.

• "There were many reviews of the book, including ..." is problematic (and the list ends with a comma). What are they being listed for? Much better to say a little about each one. The NYT is in any case mentioned below (and overlinked): one mention and one link would be better. "popular articles published in" is even more problematic: why are you singling out these publications as less good? Why is the NYT better on science than Scientific American, for instance? It makes no sense. All three are respected for their coverage. Again, much better just to say briefly what each one has to say about the book. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then drop these two lists and put the citations into a single reference.
  • I was trying to make an introduction to the section, listing all the reviews that would be used in the prose below. I believe it is actually part of MOS that each section should be formatted like an article, with an introduction summarizing the content of all the subsections. I was only really separating out the newspapers, I did not mean to imply one was more important than the other. I slightly reworded replacing "popular articles" with "magazine articles" and moving in front of newspapers. Also, I have been told on a previous GA review that name should be linked any time it is mentioned in a new section, as they are usually read independently. I will think more on this. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You've been told some odd stuff, something incorrect about overlinking, but the small changes are certainly an improvement.

• The "Development of relativity" section seems to overlap with, indeed to be part of, "Reception". They need to be merged.
  • Done. I merged the two sections in "Development of relativity" and made the whole thing a subsection of "Reception". Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Further, "John Stachel" (also overlinked) gets 2 widely-separated paragraphs; I think he should have one area, most likely of one paragraph.
  • I have been told on a previous GA review that the name should be linked any time it is mentioned in a new section. I believe that the relativity development material should be left consolidated as that is much more important than the names of the reviewers being consolidated. No one cares what "John Stachel" thinks about the book, but readers care what critics think about the book's content, including relativity (and relativity was a primary focus of both the book and the reviews of the book - and was by far the most criticized). Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • No, that's certainly overlinking, both by policy and as agreed by 99.99% of all known editors. But I agree about the relativity development section, its focus is the book even where it seems to wander a little, it's fine.

• The division of "Reception" into "Acclamations", "Reviews", "Analysis", and then "Other criticisms" doesn't work, not least because the categories overlap. Possible solutions are to have an undivided section; if that seems too long, then subheadings along the lines of "Favourable" and "Hostile" are possible, if a little risky. It might be better to divide the materials into "Contemporary" (i.e. early 1980s) and "Later", which is certainly neutral.
  • I will have to think about it. Acclamations will not be combined with anything else, though, maybe it could be renamed to "Praise"; the statements in that section do not come from book reviews, but other sources praising the book, I believe strongly that they should not be mixed in with the reviews and there is not policy or guideline saying they have to be. I can combine analysis and reviews and try to make that flow more smoothly. Then we will have "praise", "reviews", and "development of relativity" as subsections. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah, I think I see what's happened. The first part of "Acclamations" is usually "Awards", and it's separate from "Reception". It should only contain actual awards, prizes or being top of notable lists like the NYT 100 best science books of the 20th century or whatever. "Favorable mentions" however are reviews and belong in Reception. Hope this is clear. I've moved the Awards as suggested and renamed the other 2 sections - I have no preference for their actual titles as long as they are clear and don't overlap, so feel free to rename them in your own style.

• The section on the relativity priority dispute borders on undue for an article on the book; it already occurs in the article on the dispute, which I think wrongly has a "main" link pointing back here (that's not a GA matter, however). In particular, what Pais says on the dispute is rightly mentioned and linked; Whittaker's criticism of what is written on priority in the book is directly relevant for the book's reception; but McCrea's deferral to Giedymin and Torretti's remarks on Whittaker, both part of the dispute, are out of scope of the book's reception (they belong in the dispute article). They need to be removed (perhaps to the dispute article).
  • Done, by deleting last two sentences of the paragraph. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• The very short paragraph at the head of "Development of relativity" belongs in "Content"; the section itself should disappear.
  • I deleted the sentence which would not have fit in nicely into content as it was about criticisms, but was ultimately unnecessary. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Listing "Pais, Abraham" a dozen times for his publications is not ideal: why not use |author-mask= to silence most of them.
  • Done - Did not realize this was an option, thanks for the tip. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's a neat trick.

• Not sure why Michael McGoodwin should be cited in External links, this is unusual. If he's a recognised authority then it's be best to cite him in the text for something; if not, best deleted.
  • Michael McGoodwin is not notable as far as I can tell and I never had any intention of using it, that's why it was in external links. It is a summary of the book, though, so it looks pretty relevant to me. I can delete it if I must, but I don't see the point and it is my understanding that is outside of the GA criteria. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that he's not notable; that means it isn't a reliable source (WP:RS). That policy and WP:N are certainly part of the criteria. Removed it.

• Ref 24 should have |publisher=American Physical Society rather than the feeble |website=aps.org. Basically we should always name the publisher where it's possible.
  • Done - that was an oversight. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Please check article for other |website= and replace all with their publishers. One is National Book Foundation.
  • Done
    • You hadn't done all of them, actually; I've fixed them for you.

• By the way, the book has 8 pages of halftone plates (images). These should perhaps be briefly described.

@Chiswick Chap: Okay, I will respond to some of this, I haven't had time and was not sure what I should say, but here goes: Splitting the sections into "favorable" and "hostile" is not okay, not the least because it is flat wrong; for instance, McCrea's review was one of very few that I would consider downright hostile, but a quote from him is now included in the "favorable" section as if he left a good review, which he by no means attempted to do. Why did you change "website=" to "publisher=" for websites? That is clearly wrong (was confused and didn't realize that's what you wanted). Do you have a link to one of our 5 MOS pages that are required for GA that says overlinking cannot be done and some details on what overlinking means? (not in any of lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, or list incorporation that I see) I also missed the awards, I usually give them their own section, but I do not agree that the brief mentions and acclamations of the book should be mixed in with reviews. Reviews provide significant coverage of the book and are used for further reading, I would rather all the brief mentions be deleted than mixed in with the reviews (it doesn't necessarily need its own section, but it needs its own paragraph and must be stated as such). Also, you had no right under GA review procedures to demand I remove an external link from the page (and remove it yourself when I objected), that is EXPLICITLY beyond the scope of a GA review (literally included in the examples of what GA criteria are not). As far as your other comments are concerned, reliable sources were not concerned with what Penrose had to say about the book nor with any of the pictures at the beginning, ergo per GA criteria none of that is required. Also, you are now a major contributor to the article, so please excuse yourself from the review and ask for a second opinion. I have not and probably won't straight undo any of your changes, I just feel obligated to point out you are going way over beyond what you are entitled to demand as far as a simple GA review is concerned, so that you may keep that in mind next time. We do need to fix the layout now, though, as the current version is unacceptable. Also, finally, absolutely no one ever wants to hear you say that "You've been told some odd stuff" as a rebuff to an explanation; if something I said was wrong, please provide a link to the proper policy or guideline, saying I've been told odd stuff is slightly offensive and certainly unhelpful. Footlessmouse (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to take your time, there's no hurry; and feel free to choose any organisation of the reception that makes sense, which certainly means non-overlapping; I've struck the suggested subheadings. I'm sorry you objected to the comment about someone else's claim on overlinking, I've struck it, but MOS:OVERLINK, Wikipedia's policy is however unambiguous: I was NOT invoking the External links policy, and in any case the "What the GA criteria are not" is an essay: unreliable sources aren't allowed anywhere.

The awards aren't part of the reviews, we agree on that.

The only remaining item of any note is the table of contents. One GA reviewer once told me that such things were in copyright and shouldn't be quoted in full, an opinion which you might have a view on. My view is that such things should be short and in proportion to the article's length, but that too is only an opinion. As there's nothing outstanding against the criteria, I shall pass this now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)