Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fermi paradox/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Fermi paradox

Fermi paradox

edit

This is a former featured article, which I took to WP:FARC two months ago (see here). Some massive changes were made at that time and since: refs from 3 to about 30, K down from 65 to 55, enormous TOC reduced from close to 60(!) to about 30 sections. I think it's much tighter now and while it needs a few more tweaks there's nothing that can't be worked out through a new candidacy. A note to those unfamiliar with the topic: it's enormously speculative, which means our page on it is subject to tangent after tangent. I have tried to make sure the dozens of hypothetical answers to the paradox get at least mention if only in a word while cutting the fat that has been added; info that has been removed is properly linked on other pages. Marskell 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. The overall tone and language sounds wrong for an encyclopedia to me. Questions are all over the place, and it has an awful flow. I found it difficult to read, personally. — Wackymacs 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there anything actionable you could point to? Cheers, Marskell 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Trying to resolve the paradox theoretically: Explaining the silence section is the most worrying - too many subsections, and I don't think the titles are right. A general summarized "Reasons" and "Explanations" section might be better, and maybe "Theories". — Wackymacs 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does get weaker toward the end and the number of headings has been an outstanding problem. However, the topic is usually approached with lists of this sort. I'll try and work on it. Marskell 12:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I understand the various subsections, and for this article, I think that this approach really works well. My one minor criticism (and this is in no way standing in the way of me supporting) is that I'm not a big fan of inline external links. Other than that, fantastic job. Cheers! The Disco King 13:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rrpbgeek 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object based on the opening paragraph. The precise definition of physical paradox wasn't clear to me, though I knew what the Fermi paradox was. Is it really necessary to include that term? It seems to me that for the opening paragraph, it would be better to speak of something like the "apparent contradiction" between the high estimated probabilities and factual absence of contact.

It also seems unclear what "a lack of evidence" refers to. There's no need to try to be neutral here, the Fermi paradox is the dual assertion that by reasonable a priori estimates, life should exist, but it doesn't. I suggest rewriting the opening paragraph. RandomP 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote the first. "Physical paradox" was indeed probably poor word choice. Marskell 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good :-) RandomP 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I agree with Wackymacs on the tone arguement. This reads a lot like something from Popular Mechanics or another similar magazine. The tone is just all wrong for an encyclopedia article, especially the section "Trying to resolve the paradox theoretically: Explaining the silence" — Scm83x hook 'em 10:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there anything actionable you could point to? Cheers, Marskell 10:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, the old "actionable" herring. Haven't seen that one in a while. You didn't even read his complaint, Marskell: the action here would be to change the tone. --Golbez 21:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Golbez, Marskell most likely wants a particular sentence or paragraph quoted here that needs specific work on the tone. — Wackymacs 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, ya Golbez, I do want something specific and, sorry to sound resentful, but I read his quote properly. "Oh hey--change the tone" is not actionable. Actionable is not a dirty word. I'm not entirely responsible for the tone on this page to be clear, which was much more bloated when I found it. It's a popular topic (or more precisely, it's a "respectable" topic to talk about if you want to talk about "little green men") and it's given to tangents and speculation. All of the sources, more or less, use a point A, point B, point C structure (or they take one of A, B, or C and look at it at length). I think it would be a disservice to suddenly gut that structure. But it can be worked on, which is why it's here. So yes, give me something actionable :). Marskell 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, the tone is too familiar. A formal tone is expected in an encyclopedia, not a tone which interlaces humourous quotations ("... begging your pardon sir, but it's a big-ass sky." — Billy Bob Thornton as Truman in Armageddon), first-person writing outside of quotations ("The simplest explanation is that we are alone in the galaxy." and many others if you do a CTRL+F search for "we "), non-standard italics and bolding, the informal and non-standard section headers, and the colloquial style with which the article is written, in general. The article is formatted as though it is appearing in a science periodical (i.e. PopSci), as opposed to an encyclopedia. — Scm83x hook 'em 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rather like the quote as a light point on a long page but I will remove it if you like (probably in the morning at this point). Hit the history back 300 hundred say, and do a search for "we" and note the comparison--it has been a raging crusuade to remove. An otherwise very helpful editor had a tendency to use the first person plural as the subject of every sentence. The bolding for (what would otherwise be) level five headlines is not non-MOS (is it? it was actually suggested during FARC). As for the comparison to Popular Mechanics or whatever, I don't particulary care if that's how it reads if it does justice to the topic. We aren't using exclamation points for everything! The aliens are here or maybe they're not! Not to sound disinteresed, but gutting this for a vague objection won't help the topic. This sounds "popular" in the broad sense because it is "popular" in the broad sense (unlike the Crab nebula or Neutron stars, say). You can only make "the aliens are here and attempting to communicate with us" so encyclopedic. Marskell 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite my protestations, the point about first-person was actionable: all uses of "we", "our" and "us" have been eliminated (thx User:Zafiroblue05 for helping in this regard). This was needed--we'd roundly debated it on talk but the problem hadn't been systematically addressed.
      • The Billy Bob Thorton quote has been removed.
      • Any other specific points welcome. Marskell 09:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you make the lead image smaller? CG 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's looking good again. Nick Mks 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object In the refs section, you can't have lots of inline citations, then 2 bulleted refs. It's bad form. The non-inline refs should go into a seprate section. That's why many articles have notes sections in addition to refs sections. Tobyk777 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, after pickaxing out all the 'we's. Its parent article, SETI could do with this kind of treatment, as it is god awful. Proto||type 10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't find the tone overly unencyclopaedic. A couple more images to break up the weight of the text might not go amiss, but otherwise I see no problem. BillC 17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Highly readable article on an interesting topic. I think the structure is well-chosen, but the titles themselves are too populist I think. If the various subheadings are rephrased in a more encyclopaedic manner then you have my support. Would like to see this on the front page. Soo 11:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status. This is approaching decision time. The small things have been taken care and what seems to remain is a difference in kind over the headings of the last section. Yes, they could be drastically made over but I don't know how while still doing justice to each individual response to the problem. Our headings are similar to our sources (as they should be) and with the first person removed they are arguably more formal. See here for the largest popular look at the topic. So that's my take for now--I don't think we should compromise the article because of headings. Marskell 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I have some misgivings about the tone. Phrases such as "seems likely" or "seems plausible" are used too often, and this article does not feel polished. The lead, for instance, is disorganized and a little fuzzy. All criticism aside, this is really quite a good article, and on a difficult topic, and if it were featured right now, I'd be fine with it. -- Rmrfstar 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "seems to" is hard to avoid with a speculative topic like this. I'll try and look for other examples. Marskell 09:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead looks like it could use ilinks in third para, and the see also is long - should be merged with text.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There really is nothing in that para that could be linked (that isn't already). The see also has nine--fairly modest. There's a couple only partially related things I'll remove now. Marskell 14:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. This article may be a little unconventional, but it does deserve recognition as a well written, interesting article which conforms to our standards. One problem, perhaps, is it not identifying religious non-scientific theories clearly as that. Another is little explanation about what the Drake Equation is. --Oldak Quill 09:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the sentence "Although not generally considered a testable scientific explanation, the belief that a creator deity has placed humanity at the unique focus of creation has broad historical support" meet your first concern? Beyond that, there isn't a lot of religious discussion on the page. We do have a section on the Drake Equation but we don't list its factors; for a +50k article we need to let the sub- or related articles do some of the work. Marskell 10:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Support - concerned about the following statement "Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to an alien civilization, large scale exploration of the galaxy is still possible with minor investment in energy and resources." Evidence please? Who states this? The drake equation also needs to be explained very briefly, there is no context as to what this is, and I have to click on another link to understand it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed the sentence to "Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to an alien civilization, large scale exploration of the galaxy is still possible" dropping the bit about "minor investment" which is assumptive. The next sentence points the reader to the main section on this topic where sources are provided. Is this acceptable? I'll get to the Drake Equation soon. Marskell 10:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added for Drake equation: "The speculative equation factors: the rate of star formation in the galaxy; the number of stars with planets and the number that are habitable; the number of those planets which develop life and subsequently intelligent communicating life; and finally the expected lifetimes of such civilizations." OK? Again, given size concerns I'll leave fuller explanations for the sub-article. Marskell 11:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fermi_paradox/archive2&oldid=1138460618"