Jump to content

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Stephen Hawking

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These nominations predate the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and have been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

Stephen Hawking (for January 2013)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.

The result was: not scheduled by BencherliteTalk 13:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking (born 1942) is a British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author. His significant scientific works have been a collaboration with Roger Penrose on theorems on gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes emit radiation, often called Hawking radiation. He was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking has achieved success with works of popular science in which he discusses his own theories and cosmology in general; his A Brief History of Time stayed on the British Sunday Times best-sellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks. Hawking has a motor neurone disease related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a condition that has progressed over the years. He is almost entirely paralysed and communicates through a speech generating device. (Full article...)

information Note: Whichever delegate is scheduling for January 8 should check Talk:Stephen Hawking for the latest state of play about discussions concerning article content/quality. BencherliteTalk 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the corrections, I should stay away from math ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The cn tags are all in one sentence, placed on separate clauses by a user with a contribs history that shows an obvious POV to push- an put there only a week after the article was promoted; apparently the lead editors haven't gone back and cleaned them up. This is an extremely minor nitpick. The TFA is appropriate, and any minor copyediting can and undoubtably will be completed prior to the main page appearance Montanabw(talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith should indicate that an established user, who says that an assertion is not in the cited source, is familiar with that source. Good faith should also make us reluctant to accuse established users of pushing a POV. Articles appearing on the main page should be free of such concerns. Has anyone active on the article, or this nomination, contacted the user who added the tags? Kablammo (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everybody, I was the editor who took the article though GA and it's various FA stages (which I couldn't have done without the help and support of a large number of other editors) - and it is really extremely gratifying to find out that it is being considered for front-page status. Thank you so much for the nomination. For some general information, the editor who added the citation tags is an admin, and so it should probably be taken seriously. I'd really appriate it if a senior editor would have a go at straightening those sections out. I can certainly put some time into any other concerns raised - Kablammo - can you give me some examples of sections were copyediting would be particularly useful? SandyGeorgia has raised some issues on the talk page and I'm going to potter down and respond to them now. :) Fayedizard (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to, Fayedizard. I cannot today, but will post them to article talk page, or (if you wish) copyedit myself. Nudge me if you don't hear from me soon. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great - looking forward to working with you. By the way - I'm( I believe) the significant contributor to the article, and I've never had a front-page before - does that mean we get another point? (I'll be honest, I'm a bit out of my deapth with the process...) Fayedizard (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, the easy answer would be yes, but there was just a change to the instructions about the nominator point that is still Greek To Me, so I asked for clarification on talk. With 7 points, you won't likely need any more :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The easy answer is still yes. You can claim the point, but no-one can claim it on your behalf - that's not changed. 8 points. BencherliteTalk 13:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it is indeed a Featured Article, and will be for the period including TFA, even if Sandy or someone else takes it to FAR. I, for one, do not think the article is so poorly written that it should be stripped of its FA status. Nonetheless, I appreciate the views of those who think it needs a total rewrite, and I commend any such critics who step up to the task. There is no rule that says an FA must remain unchanged. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the banner is (I think) relating to a conversation on the talk about (I think) moving some of the lists. The list structure as it is now is the one that it passed FA with. I'm honestly completely confused and would appreciate some more eyes on the matter. :s Fayedizard (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that some of the parties involved there are creating unneeded drama, and that should have some bearing on this matter; that's all I have to say. Still support TFA, and the list thing probably just needs one list moved down with the others. Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the drama; hear, hear! Best way to avoid that is to comment on content, not editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment earlier in the week I rang Hawking's press officer to a) let the team there know this was happening, b) give the team time check that there were no objections to the frontpaging from any of the family c) given them time to look over the article for any inaccuracies and omissions. I rang back today and was (slightly shortly) told there were no problems from their end. I don't think this should necessarily be taken as a ringing testimonial - "no problems" could be anywhere from 'I've taken a quick look and we don't see anything obviously libelous' to 'we've had one of Hawking's colleges check the science', via 'we simple don't care about what you guys on wikipedia do'. I'm noting it here because I was a little nervous of for throwing BLPs at the front page without notifying them first, I'm interested to know if this is standard practice. Fayedizard (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The article as it stands does not represent our best work. See the detailed discussion on the talk page about several fairly serious problems with the article. --John (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per John. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I agree with many of the concerns brought up at the talk page. In addition to (relatively minor) prose and MoS issues, I think the coverage is too thin and the article does not meet FA criteria 1b ("comprehensive"). Sasata (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Absolutely. Totally deserves to be on the main page TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. FAC inflationists have been complaining that the article isn't comprehensive enough, but I would contend that most of our featured bios these days are much too long and tedious. 50K used to be considered quite lengthy. Ah the good old days! Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be long and tedious to explain why this famous scientist is famous? At the moment the article doesn't really do that. --John (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • People familiar with FAC don't tend to measure quality or comprehensiveness in terms of KB, but FWIW, the article passed FAC with a mere 2,700 words of prose (shocking for a bio of a person of this caliber); it is now at 3,400 words, which by no means taxes the reader. The article does not yet address why this man is so famous, and we don't measure comprehensiveness of an article based on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. By the way, who are these "FAC inflationists"? I've always complained about articles that are too long, which is pretty much anything above 7,000 words; is Kaldari opposing those on this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update, the article is slowly being written using the numerous biographies available, with significant inaccuracies, prose infelicities, lack of comprehensiveness, misrepresentation of sources, and a BLP vio found so far. Changes since featured version; the talk page lists many issues that remain to be addressed, and the article does not yet meet FA standards for prose, comprehensiveness, or survey of high quality sources. Slp1, MathewTownsend, and John are rewriting (I've pretty much done only MOS cleanup and prose redundancy reduction); Brianboulton offered to copyedit later, but text is still being corrected and added. The citation needed tags (still being addressed) had been in place since September, and the original editor has been mostly absent since the article was promoted. An article about a popular figure like Hawking really should be watched. Because the article is now being written, it will eventually need a FAR to make sure standards are met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful oppose for now. Although we really need to get science articles on the main page rather than the pop culture that's been appearing there lately, this article is not good enough to be featured. The article gives way too much weight to his early life and personal life, and does not go into nearly enough detail on his scientific accomplishments, which is arguably the most important section. This is not to mention the incredibly ugly "in popular culture" section, which, frankly, does not deserve its own section. Simply, the necessary content on his discoveries is not here, and the article gives undue weight to minor curiosities, such as the Thorne-Hawking bet. However, I am almost inclined to support this due to the fact that it is a science article, and we need many more of those on the main page, rather than this popculture-cruft, and that the FA standards are often impossible for technical science articles to meet. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not in favor of the notion of running two bios back-to-back, and Nixon follows this with considerable support. Further, this article cannot be brought to anywhere close to FA standards by January 8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your standards are high, but we still have 10 days until then. Two, three, and even four bios in a row have been scheduled in the past, for example: in September 5-7, 14-16, in October 12-13, 23-26, in November 4-5, 11-12, in December 1-2, 13-14, 24-25
  • Regretful oppose for now per StringTheory11. And per my comment here. More time is needed to work on the article, which (despite the FAC and despite the excellent work done to bring it to the level it reached) is not yet as comprehensive or detailed as it should be. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Closing comment from Bencherlite: "not scheduled - rewriting in progress, there is no deadline and no pressing need for this to appear as the TFA while such work is ongoing"

Stephen Hawking (for January 2014)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.

The result was: not scheduled by BencherliteTalk 09:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking (born 1942) is a British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author. His significant scientific works to date have been a collaboration with Roger Penrose on theorems on gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, often called Hawking radiation. He was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology. Hawking has a motor neurone disease related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a condition that has progressed over the years. He is now almost entirely paralysed and communicates through a speech generating device. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking has achieved success with works of popular science in which he discusses his own theories and cosmology in general; his A Brief History of Time stayed on the British Sunday Times best-sellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks. (Full article...)
  • Widely covered physicist on his birthday, - yes, I know, the article was considered not good enough last year, and we just showed a physicist, but how often do we have the chance to honour one who is alive? There are a few days left to improve, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward opposing. I wouldn't have supported this article at FAC on grounds of comprehensiveness, and FAC3 looks a little lacking in rigour, IMHO. It covers the material from a biographical standpoint, but I see a lot of holes (thankfully not black holes): this article should have more substance on his contributions to physics, and the criticism (in some cases, refutation) of his contributions. While other articles lay out his theories at length, I am surprised by the lack of sufficient brief summaries here. There is more discussion of whether or not he believes in God than of interpreting his greatest achievements. Further, despite not being a fan of "in popular culture" sections, relevant material regarding his reception in pop culture and parodying of him should be discussed more since a large portion of his cultural relevance is not based on his science, but on the parodies.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To my knowledge, the article has not yet been brought to standard, work was not completed, and some sections on talk were archived without work being completed. I believe the article should be submitted to WP:FAR, but unless Slp1 is active, bringing the article to status will be difficult. Not only do I believe it should not be TFAR; it is unclear that it should even be a Featured article. Talk page review after the last nomination here revealed text not supported by citations, text misrepresented by citations, BLP vios, lack of comprehensiveness ... well, pretty much one of everything. A review of talk page archives is instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the poor state of the article. It does not meet featured article criteria at the moment, and I see that reasonable and actionable suggestions from this time last year have not been implemented. It would be laudable to have a TFA on this interesting and brilliant physically disabled scientist. Trouble is, it does not read like a featured article on a scientist but more like a bio of a reality TV star or something. There is no coherent description of his many scientific breakthroughs and failures. We have instead got lots of choppy chronological random events. We have more about his religious beliefs and about his disability than about his science. This does not reflect well on our project and we should not be promoting this article, but instead either rewriting it (and I am not volunteering for that), or reviewing its FA status. Meantime, no. --John (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – full of holes IMO and it does not capture WP at it's best. I agree with John that it reads differently to other FA's and tends to lean on his disability a bit too much. CassiantoTalk 19:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for the ping, Bencherlite, but I'll respectfully defer to the consensus expressed by the community, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Montanabw. The article is pretty good but not perfect. I think it fits within the range of expected high quality for FA. I also think it should have run last year, but the //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=530866043 TFAR had 4 opposes] against 11 supports, which resulted in no TFA. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's just "good but not perfect" then it belongs at GA...featured article status can't just be "pretty good" and an article we feature on the mainpage as representative of the best that Wikipedia has to offer can't just be "pretty good".--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not this side of his desired date at TFA I wouldn't have thought. This would benefit from a WP:FAR I would think. CassiantoTalk 22:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Stephen_Hawking&oldid=1138371841"