Talk:John Hagelin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 09:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Parked content per BLP/ pending source

I so far don't see a source for this so have moved it for now. Its not critical content in anyway as far as I can tell.(olive (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hagelin was invited to be a plenary speaker at the 2007 Quantum Mind conference in Salzburg, Austria, organized by Stuart Hameroff (University of Arizona) and Gustav Bernroider (University of Salzburg).^{[citation needed]}

"Hagelin was a researcher at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and is now Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management (MUM). " - suggest "A researcher at the... Hagelin is"
"Non academic positions" - add hyphen between the first two words
"University of Management,[3][4]" - should the comma be a period?
Ok, references layout and reliability are serious problems here. In short:
Many footnotes are missing accessdates, publishers, authors
Many dead references
"Craig Ridgley, Safire Internet Solutions, http://safire.net+(June" - just "Craig Ridgley"
Make sure you don't use all-capital titles as it is discouraged
It would be better and more accessible if you create a "Bibliography" sub-section and use short footnotes, such as {{sfn}}
Ref 7: Nov 4, 2000 should be November 4, 2000
Questionable sources: "TV Guide", "Tv.msn.com".
Ref 85-87: Odd "ƒá", please correct
Avoid writing urls into the publisher parameters (the work is mainly the website itself), eg "Uspeacegovernment.org" - "US Peace Government"
Use a consistent style
In the title parameters, use only the title, no dates or pages. There are separate parameters for those.--Tomcat (7) 10:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Track progress for GA clean up

Hagelin was a researcher at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and is now Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management (MUM). " - suggest "A researcher at the... Hagelin is

Not sure what is meant here, but made the change I though was suggested.(olive (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

"Non academic positions" - add hyphen between the first two words Yes, fixed.(olive (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
University of Management,[3][4]" - should the comma be a period? Yes, fixed.(olive (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, references layout and reliability are serious problems here. In short:

Many footnotes are missing accessdates, publishers, authors
Many dead references
"Craig Ridgley, Safire Internet Solutions, http://safire.net+(June" - just "Craig Ridgley"... removed name as he is not author
Done Make sure you don't use all-capital titles as it is discouraged
It would be better and more accessible if you create a "Bibliography" sub-section and use short footnotes, such as {{sfn}}

I prefer the style used in Nixon or Dostoyevsky.--Tomcat (7) 20:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. That's a nice style. I've never used the style before so have to figure out how to do it.(olive (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Ref 7: Nov 4, 2000 should be November 4, 2000 (olive (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Questionable sources: "TV Guide", "Tv.msn.com".
Ref 85-87: Odd "ƒá", please correct.(olive (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Avoid writing urls into the publisher parameters (the work is mainly the website itself), eg "Uspeacegovernment.org" - "US Peace Government"
Use a consistent style
In the title parameters, use only the title, no dates or pages. There are separate parameters for those.--

I copied Tom Cat's points here to chart progress. Forgot to mention it.(olive (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Reformatting refs

I thought it might be a good idea to document the steps each editor is taking in reformatting refs so we don't duplicate the work. (olive (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

From my talk page:

-From Timid Guy. I'm working on the bibliography for Hagelin GA. At this point I'm just capturing the refs from the text, and trying to do it in a way that will expedite creating a proper listing using the cite template. It looks like it'll take an hour or so. I did a little now and will work on it in the morning, hopefully.

-From TG's talk page: Hi TG. I'm going to abandon my sandbox and begin to work in yours. Hope you don't mind me playing in your sand box, :O) otherwise I think we'd be duplicating efforts. I see that you are capturing the refs so I'll come along behind and check them in reference to a citation template to make sure we have everything in place. Thanks for doing this TG.(olive (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

As soon as you do this TG I'll alphabetize the refs.
Then I can use the template top create the shortened citations.

Status of review?

What's the current status of this review? It's been over a month since this page has been updated. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've been hard at work on this article. Changing all the refs to use the convention suggested by the reviewer is a big job. We've created a bibliography and are now gradually converting refs to the sfn template. Thanks for your interest. TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sfn templates are useful if there are several similar references. You can just keep those which appear only one time. A format like in Otis Redding would be nice. However, you don't need to reorganize the references. They just require a small clean-up. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if there is one source you frequently use, and which has pages, it is useful to use short footnotes. Small journals with a few pages can be kept as is.--Tomcat (7) 12:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yes, too late we've converted the whole thing, but is been a good learning exercise for me at least since I hadn't used this format before. I had to be out of town for a few days with not much computer time but will get back to it soon. I think the job could be done next week sometime. Thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Has the conversion been completed? Wizardman 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in. The conversion has been delayed. I have to step back for editing since I've developed some potentially serious overuse injuries. I left a note for the reviewer here.[1] TimidGuy says he will continue to work on the refs. I hope to be back in a couple of weeks and will finish anything left to do then.(olive (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Ref 43 in "Politician" does not support the fact that he appeared in Inside Politics, CNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, and C-SPAN's Washington Journal.--Tomcat (7) 13:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been fixed. A source was found for two of the items, and the third has been removed. The conversion is pretty much done now, except for reorganizing the bibliography, which I hope to do in the next couple days. TimidGuy (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]