Talk:A Guide to the Scientific Knowledge of Things Familiar/GA1

GA Review

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

Criterion 1: well-written

Good here. Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable

I appreciate your efforts to bring the article in line with WP:OR, and I also appreciate how frustrating it must be to be told you can't say things that are A) true and B) pretty obvious anyway. Alas, the GA process is about adhering to criteria, and, also alas, one of the criteria is "No original research" - essentially, this means you need sources that talk about this book. Most of your sources are either the book itself or the book itself + an outside source that doesn't specifically mention the book. You need to have sources besides the book that talk about the book; I've a quick search myself and don't see anything. However, I don't want to give the article a knee-jerk fail, so I'm putting it on hold for a week; hopefully, you will be able to find something. Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the comments. Finding sources was very difficult for this topic, and the lack of sources was the main reason it failed an FA nomination, IIRC. However, I did a major revamp, removing a lot of the OR, and I think everything is now sourced reliably apart from some statements which are never likely to be challenged (see the core policy behind OR, WP:BURDEN) eg, that the caloric theory of heat is obsolete. Perhaps you can tell me exactly where there's a problem and I'll see if I can fix it. Adding {{or}} tags throughout the article would be fine.

You mention that one sources doesn't mention the book. I don't know which source you're talking about. If you mean the "Cavelleri, Matteo (2004), Local Structure of Hydrogen-Bonded Liquids" source, see the footnote at the bottom of page 8.

Also, you suggest that the references to the book are an OR problem. I cannot see how that can be correct, and WP:PRIMARY confirms that primary sources may be used carefully. If you look at the information that I have actually sourced to the book, the majority of it is the author's own aims and intentions. I do not see how such information could be sourced from anything other than something written by the author, and therefore sourcing the book itself cannot be a problem. Another section that is sourced mainly to the book is the section on content, but this is comparable to a plot summary which typically never uses sources at all.

The only statement sourced to the book which might be a problem is the statement on its popularity. However, given that the number of books published is unlikely to be a hugely contentious issue, I don't think there's a problem there. The suggestion that this number of books being sold was "almost unparalled at the time" is the only thing I think could be objectionable, but I don't think it's too bad or significant a claim.

Looking forward to your further thoughts. GDallimore (Talk) 20:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; thanks for your thoughtful reply. I have looked at the article's history, and the changes you have made are quite significant. And you are right that one can and must use Brewer's own statements to establish his intent; I don't have a problem with any of those (I should have been more specific earlier, sorry).

Thanks!

The statement about the book's sales being "almost unparalled at the time" needs tweaking; I don't think a citation to Brewer himself is quite sufficient, but you could get round this by simply saying something like "which Brewer claimed was..."

Good point, don't know why I didn't think of it myself!

The footnote on page 8 of Cavellari is fine, but the way it's currently cited is somewhat unclear. I think you could add a little more to this paragraph, to make it clear that the source, and not just you, is pointing out Brewer's out-dated-ness; something like "Modern scientists recognize that...". In other words, the way the citation is placed right now, it appears only to cite the hydrogen bond, when in fact the sentence (or clause) should make clear that the source mentions Brewer specifically.

Done, and have improved referencing of whole paragraph with something to support the overt religious content of the book.

Nevertheless, changes in scientific understanding since the 19th century have rendered obsolete theories such as caloric theory ~ This looks like OR in part because statement is sourced to Brewer, which doesn't make sense, as the entire sentence implies that these theories' obsolescence post-dated Brewer.

I'll look up by first year physics texts, although, as I say below, it's not a big claim that these theories are obsolete. I've moved the refs to the end of the sentence in the meantime.

My point here is that you cite the obsolescence of those theories to Brewer. Sadly, a different source will need to mention Brewer specifically - a physic textbook, for example, would fall under WP:SYN: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Ricardiana (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's another problem here, too, which has to do with the reliability of sources. Because sources are so scarce, you have had to use some that are less than ideal, and which don't, I think, meet the GA criteria. The Amazon source is one such example; Orion Books is another (since the DOPAF is so much better remembered, this ref. might be more easily replaced). I feel dubious about Project Runeberg, since that appears to be like Project Gutenberg; and I'm even more dubious about the Nottinghamshire history site. Can you tell me more about these sources and why they should be considered reliable?

I agree I'd prefer not to use Amazon, but I think it's a reliable source for the date of publication, which is all it is being used for. I'll see what BookCat shows up, but there wasn't anything there last time I looked. And the Orion Books ref is merely to show that DOPAF is still being published, so I don't think there's a problem there either. Again, maybe BookCat can help. Will look.

Since the Amazon ref is to the fact that the U of M digitized the book, maybe it can be replaced with something from the U of M? If not, that's fine. Ricardiana (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Runeberg, it's not contradicting anything in the article (although it doesn't help with the confusion in numerous sources about the date of first publication) so I don't think there's any particular reason to doubt the accuracy of the source. However, some of the new sources I've found may help piece together the publication history a bit better. Will investigate.

There seem to be tons of ads for various editions of the book through Google Books - I think they would be more reliable sources, and still allow you to demonstrate the book's lengthy and somewhat messy publication history. Ricardiana (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For NotHis, agreed it's not a great source, but I've found another source which corroborates most of the information taken from it, thus supporting it's accuracy. The only thing I haven't found a second source for is the advice to burn the book given to him by one man of science. Would hate to lose that!

Agreed, it would be a shame to lose the anecdote. Which source corroborates this one? Ricardiana (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I may have some good news. Do you have access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? It mentions the Guide, albeit very briefly, calling it "pioneering." That's certainly a reliable source, and would be nice to mention in the "Reception and legacy" section. Also, Google Books now includes 19th-century journals; there are a few references to the Guide, again very brief, that could be used to replace some of the sources I questioned above. ~ If you don't have access to any of this material, just let me know and I will post quotations.

You'll see from the edit history that I've been busy! Thanks very much for the tip-off.

So, with the new sources at my disposal, I think it's getting there. I've also found some very interesting comments about the over-use of catechisms in education, particular the education of women and think there's a real chance for this article to grow towards FA status based on those. Thanks very much for the prompt to start searching again. GDallimore (Talk) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources are looking very nice! In case you don't have access to the DNB, here's the entry on Brewer:

[copyright text redacted] Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Margaret Ridler, ‘Brewer, Ebenezer Cobham (1810–1897)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004

Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I haven't done any searching for sources in a while. I'll give Google books another go and see if I can find the stuff you mention. Thanks. By the way, the fact that caloric theory and the fluid theory of electricity are obsolete are the things that I think nobody would challenge. I might be able to source it to one of my basic physics textbooks, but these statements are really beyond question and have been since the beginning of the 20th century. GDallimore (Talk) 09:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage

Fine here. Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 4: neutral

Fine here except for concerns re: WP:OR, as above. Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 5: stable

Very stable. Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images

Fine here. Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

...for reasons given under c(2). Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...as the on hold limit of one week is up, and not all issues have been addressed, I'm afraid the article is a fail as it stands. Feel free to request a reassessment, or to re-nominate the article after the unresolved issues have been addressed. Ricardiana (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Didn't have the time time to spend on reviewing the sources (birthdays, huh!). Will try again in future. GDallimore (Talk) 08:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]