Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Wer900 • talk 01:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has fulfilled all requirements for becoming a featured article in my opinion, but disputes over the title and in some cases a lack of reviewers have stopped the article from attaining FA status. I am nominating this article in the hopes that it will receive wider and closer scrutiny than in previous FACs. Wer900 • talk 01:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there is a lack of consistency with regards to attributing authorities. For example, Ben Finney is first referenced as "Finney", while Robert Freitas and Steven Dick are both introduced with their full names (as they should be). Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the Dick reference is inconsistent as well. First you have him listed as "Steven J. Dick", then "astronomer Steven Dick", and then Dick, so you need to fix that too. "Astronomer" should appear in the first instance before the full name, followed by subsequent references to "Dick". Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I resolved the problems that you mentioned. Is there anything else? Wer900 • talk 17:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is somewhat rambling, confusing and doesn't communicate the subject very well. I wonder if you might try rewriting it. I attempted to do this sometime ago and I believe I was either reverted or overruled. My point is that this isn't a featured article quality lead, IMO. For example, take the first sentence. It isn't accurate, as it implies that potential cultural impact will automatically arise from communication, but that isn't needed at all. In fact, there might be cultural impact from receiving information from a Bracewell probe, explaining how we can meet with detailed instructions for building a transportation device. This, as you know, was Bracewell's idea and became part of the plot for Sagan's Contact. I think you get the idea. The first paragraph lacks a narrative framework and consists mostly of different lists linked together instead of directed prose taking the reader through a simple summary of the topic. In some strange way, it looks like you have the order of paragraphs reversed. The third paragraph should be first and the first paragraph should be third. This would clear up a lot of confusion. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the lede is indeed clunky in its present state. I do have a revised one in my sandbox; please recommend any changes to it that might be necessary to bring the lede to FA quality. Wer900 • talk 00:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't understand why you are waiting until the end of the lead to explain the difference with SETI. Shouldn't this be the second sentence in your revised lead? Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the mention of SETI to the second sentence, albeit quite inelegantly. Modifications are in my sandbox. Wer900 • talk 03:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but your lead is still a mess. Try to focus on writing it for a reader who knows nothing about the subject and lose the vague prose. Take a more narrow, conservative approach. In the lead, you say the effects of contact could include "sweeping changes", that they could "vary greatly in magnitude and type", etc. This might be fine for the body, but try to give the reader more to chew and less nebulosity. Start by deleting all of the adjectives and adverbs. Stick with the facts. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some changes and removed redundancy, but I'm not sure I made the necessary sweeping changes to the lede. Could you please review it again? Also, I'd like to get more reviewers for the page, preferably from WP:ASTRONOMY. Wer900 • talk 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced the article meets criterion 1a. If WP:ASTRONOMY can help you with that, then great. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly believe that the prose does meet criterion 1a. I've seen other featured-article candidates and the prose is at a similar level there to what I have seen in my writing. Nevertheless, if there are any errors then WikiProject Astronomy should be able to help. Wer900 • talk 20:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced the article meets criterion 1a. If WP:ASTRONOMY can help you with that, then great. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some changes and removed redundancy, but I'm not sure I made the necessary sweeping changes to the lede. Could you please review it again? Also, I'd like to get more reviewers for the page, preferably from WP:ASTRONOMY. Wer900 • talk 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but your lead is still a mess. Try to focus on writing it for a reader who knows nothing about the subject and lose the vague prose. Take a more narrow, conservative approach. In the lead, you say the effects of contact could include "sweeping changes", that they could "vary greatly in magnitude and type", etc. This might be fine for the body, but try to give the reader more to chew and less nebulosity. Start by deleting all of the adjectives and adverbs. Stick with the facts. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the mention of SETI to the second sentence, albeit quite inelegantly. Modifications are in my sandbox. Wer900 • talk 03:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't understand why you are waiting until the end of the lead to explain the difference with SETI. Shouldn't this be the second sentence in your revised lead? Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the lede is indeed clunky in its present state. I do have a revised one in my sandbox; please recommend any changes to it that might be necessary to bring the lede to FA quality. Wer900 • talk 00:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is somewhat rambling, confusing and doesn't communicate the subject very well. I wonder if you might try rewriting it. I attempted to do this sometime ago and I believe I was either reverted or overruled. My point is that this isn't a featured article quality lead, IMO. For example, take the first sentence. It isn't accurate, as it implies that potential cultural impact will automatically arise from communication, but that isn't needed at all. In fact, there might be cultural impact from receiving information from a Bracewell probe, explaining how we can meet with detailed instructions for building a transportation device. This, as you know, was Bracewell's idea and became part of the plot for Sagan's Contact. I think you get the idea. The first paragraph lacks a narrative framework and consists mostly of different lists linked together instead of directed prose taking the reader through a simple summary of the topic. In some strange way, it looks like you have the order of paragraphs reversed. The third paragraph should be first and the first paragraph should be third. This would clear up a lot of confusion. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with Viriditas I'm afraid. --John (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly can be done to improve the article? Many FACs have specific recommendations which can be ticked off as done or not done, but I have no clue what exactly I am supposed to accomplish. Wer900 • talk 17:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by Piotrus:
please disambiguate Albert Harrison (notable, should be linked)- Done.
the article introduces some people and their position; this is broken with the mention of Seth D. Baum, whose position is not given (he may not be notable, so not linking him may be fine)
- Done.
Paolo Musso may be notable, please consider linking
Overall, I find this article may be forgetting about WP:RED, and WP:BTW. Particlularly in the social science context, I see terms that should be linked. For example: history of science, morality, religious belief, altruism, all items mentioned in the sentence "rinciples such as justice, respect for diversity, honesty, and respect for property and territory". Few other examples of terms I'd expect to be linked to something: radiation leakage, frequency bands. Likely notable people mentioned but not linked: Martin Dominik.
- Both done.
- This is just from reading the first few sections. Please don't stop at fixing the above, but carefully reread the entire article with the focus on what should be linked. For now I have to object due to the failure in BTW/RED. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Piotrus, this is what I found:
Seth D. Baum is the Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (which seems most related to the topic of the article).Paolo Musso does not have an article, and while it may be good to create redlinks to encourage creation of new articles, they are incongruous with the rest of an FA-class article.Again, Martik Dominik does not have an article, and I don't wish to add a redlink for the same reasons as above.
- In conclusion, thanks for giving a clear and itemized review so I can improve the article. Wer900 • talk 03:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you mean when you say "they are incongruous with the rest of an FA-class article". WP:RED is a policy. Featured Articles are expected to follow it. It's pretty simple. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wrong, then. I just wouldn't like excessive redlinks in FA-class articles. But I added them to this one anyway. Wer900 • talk 16:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you mean when you say "they are incongruous with the rest of an FA-class article". WP:RED is a policy. Featured Articles are expected to follow it. It's pretty simple. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Piotrus, this is what I found:
Closing comment There has been no activity on this page for over month and I cannot see a consensus being reached to promote this article. There are still problems with the prose. In particular, excessively long sentences and a poor lead. Graham Colm (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.