Talk:Fossen's marine craft model
Feedback from New Page Review process
[edit]I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: It is not clear why this page should exist as against being a redirect to the section on Fossen's page. Currently it is a textbook entry without clear evidence of notability. Not everything be\longs on Wikipedia.
Ldm1954 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am the original author of this article and have a declared COI, as stated on my user page. I welcome suggestions for improving the article's neutrality and sourcing to address the COI tag. I would like to clarify why I mean this page warrants a standalone article. The marine craft model developed by Thor I. Fossen in 1991 has been widely cited in academic literature and is a foundational framework in the field of marine control systems. It is discussed in textbooks, research articles, and practical applications across the marine industry, making it a notable topic of its own. I welcome any additional feedback or suggestions for improvement. Tfossen (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tfossen, I think the biggest problem is "neutral point of view", WP:NPOV, particularly with your COI. Someone who knows little about the topic (e.g. me) could view this article as indicating that your model is the only one used. While your work is certainly highly cited, I cannot verify the uniqueness. I can think of two remedies:
- Add a section describing other models, being careful to represent all views even if you don't agree with them.
- Retract the article (I can turn it into a draft) and write a longer one which is more general with your approach one of several.
- I have taken route 2 a few times. It is hard to represent the work of others fairly when you are unsure about their correctness, but that is the right thing to do.
- There might be a third approach, it is Xmas so things will be slower. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The model formulation applies universally to all existing models, meaning there are no disagreements or competing frameworks. All other marine craft models can be represented using these equations in the matrix-vector formulation, which has been validated by the approximately 17,000 citations of my Wiley textbooks. However, I understand that the process of making this widely recognized is gradual and requires careful consideration. Therefore, I kindly request that the article be retracted and moved to a draft for further refinement. Thank you for your constructive feedback. Tfossen (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can you find papers/review articles by others that state what you said above? If you can then use them. It is not an issue of recognization, it is a question of demonstrating independent verification to overcome possible COI questions. You don't have to convince me, you have to convince readers 0f the article who wont see this page.
- Please think about it. If you remain of the opinion that you want to go to a draft, improve it then resubmit for review (which will resolve COI) I will do that in a few days. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please move this article to draft. Rewriting and resubmitting it will require significant effort, including compiling the most recognized review papers. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Tfossen (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The model formulation applies universally to all existing models, meaning there are no disagreements or competing frameworks. All other marine craft models can be represented using these equations in the matrix-vector formulation, which has been validated by the approximately 17,000 citations of my Wiley textbooks. However, I understand that the process of making this widely recognized is gradual and requires careful consideration. Therefore, I kindly request that the article be retracted and moved to a draft for further refinement. Thank you for your constructive feedback. Tfossen (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tfossen, I think the biggest problem is "neutral point of view", WP:NPOV, particularly with your COI. Someone who knows little about the topic (e.g. me) could view this article as indicating that your model is the only one used. While your work is certainly highly cited, I cannot verify the uniqueness. I can think of two remedies: