Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive3

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 promoted by GrahamColm 12:47, 3 September 2012 [1].

Stephen Hawking[edit]

Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1

Nominator(s): Fayedizard (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria as I understand them. Until very recently it was one of those wonderful articles that had arisen through many thousands of editors making one or two changes. Since then I nominated it for GA, which it passed following review from Binksternet, and has also had a peer review from Finetooth (with continuing useful comments from Binksternet)- both these processes have improved the article immensely.

In it's first FAC it coped well but was ultimately rejected… It had another PR afters from User:TimothyRias, who knows his Physics, and it's been quite deeply rewritten (the local library are getting sick of me). One of the interesting things about that process was to see how much it's worth going straight from the biographies in many cases, rather than building up from lots of newspaper stories… ~~Fayedizard (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

In it's second FAC it had some excellent comments, but unfortunately not enough support, I'm hoping the third time is the charm. Fayedizard (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support With respect to comprehensiveness (and in particular the physics). See the peer review.T R 12:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this in the previous FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article should contain a separate section on the scientific work of Hawking. It is a good form of writing an articles about famous physicists (see, for example, Ludwig Boltzmann, James Clerk Maxwell). I mean, information about the scientific work of Hawking should be more specifically described in article, like it is done in the article about Albert Einstein. --Heller2007 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heller, it's always nice to get comments (and actually I haven't read though Maxwell's article before, so that was quite interesting) - I confess that I though the career section *was* a section specifically describing Hawking's scientific work - it's split by time period rather than by field largely because of (continuing) progression of Hawking's ideas over the years. I suspect that there is a tension here between providing a narrative structure for the continuing work of a living physicist, and the ability to take a much longer view of the ideas inspired by a figure like Einstein, whose work can be viewed from a much greater distance - I think this is probably an interesting conversation to have, although maybe not here - can we continue it either at WP:Physics or the Hawking talk page? Fayedizard (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it is very difficult to describe the work of a living scientist. One can correctly estimate the scientist's work only after a long enough period of time. That's why I think your approach is acceptable. Nevertheless the most established positions of the Hawking's theory should be marked separately in the article, in my opinion. I also agree with you that this is an interesting subject for conversation, and I ready to continue it at the Hawking talk page. --Heller2007 (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "career" section quite effectively summarizes the scientific contributions of Hawking. Also this is certainly not a requirement for FA. See for example the recently promoted J. Robbert Oppenheimer for an article that is almost completely linear in its narrative.T R 10:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment <repasting an unreplied comment I made at the fag-end of the previous FAC> For the world's most recognisable scientist today, I am surprised by how short this article is: less than 50 kB. Is there really so little to say about this iconic 70-year-old man? To compare with an equally well-known physicist, J. Robert Oppenheimer, that the latter article is 110 kB. Even Edward Teller (though only 60 kB) appears to be much longer, wordcount-wise.—indopug (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conciseness is a virtue not a flaw. The Oppenheimer example you mention, is an example of an article that is overly winded by focussing on a lot of anecdotal detail. As far as I can tell this article is fairly comprehensive. So, unless you missing anything specific, I don't really see what you are objecting too.T R 15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, there's very little of Stephen Hawking the author (there more here about a bet he made than all the bestselling books he wrote put together). Forr eg: why did he write Brief History, what did the critics say about it, why was so popular, does it have a place in the modern non-fiction canon (Time 100 for Non-Fiction, for eg) and similarly for his other books. Also, there's nothing about Hawking the iconic public figure? Surely there must be a lot of commentary about that ("As a person of great interest to the public"—why, exactly?)? As it is, with its focus on scientific achievement, lists of books written and awards won, the article has a bare-bones résumé feel to it. I think it needs more drama.—indopug (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Indopug - apologies for not getting back to your earlier - it slipped my mind when trying to work out the mechanics of renominating - I'm doing to reply to both you and TSU below...Fayedizard (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries.—indopug (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that there is a separate article about A Brief History of Time, so there shouldn't be much more than a mention in the biography. Similarly there are separate articles covering major aspects of his work such as Hawking radiation too. Roger (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should our Shakespeare article have not "much more than a mention" of Romeo and Juliet because there is an article for that? I think Hawking the pop-science writer is as well known and notable as Hawking the physicist. His writing career should have its own section and deserves to be discussed at (reasonable) length.—indopug (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to some degree. The article should at least answer the question "Why did this guy in a wheelchair who needs to use his cheek to get words out of his head into the outside world, decide to write a book on popular science?"T R 10:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is sensible (the answer, according to the Ferguson Bio. appears to be simply that he did it for income) but, as discussed below, a lot of content relevant to this was rubbed away following successive comments at the GA, PR and first FAC - I'm quite happy to add more (Higgs and the Paralympics will likely go in at the same time) but I'll like to make that it stuff that's definitely desired - is there any content in pervious versions or the BHOT page that you would particularly like to see restored? Fayedizard (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as length is concerned, I have no problem but I believe that In popular culture could be expanded as much as Illness section is. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 16:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evening both, with regard to pop culture and icon status and so on, I'm very happy and flexible - my concern is that since beginning this process in February, a constant feedback in the GA, the PR and the first FAC was to remove the 'triva' and what some editors saw as gossip (and also that it wasn't focusing sufficiently on the science). So there is clearly a bit of a push-pull going on here and such things have gradually eroded. I think it would be great if we could talk about specifics, for example here is the version before the trimming [2], and there is also the sub-article Stephen_Hawking_in_popular_culture, are there particular parts of either that jump out at you as to be included? Fayedizard (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the subsection In popular culture should be expanded, but it's a little bit strange for me to see this subsection in the Personal life section. --Heller2007 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the placement in the "personal life" section stuck me as very odd too. Usually, "popular culture" sections tend to go at the very bottom of articles such as this. And I actually don't think I would classify his integration into the popular culture as "personal life". How about moving that section down in the article to being right above the "see also" section. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- sounds good to be, will fix shortly (at work at the moment) unless anyone else wants to move it in the meantime...Fayedizard (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it will be more appropriate variant. --Heller2007 (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this. Is there a reason The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time is omitted in the list of his books? I can only find it linked in the SH template and it's an important work. Regards Hekerui (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and forth on this a little (it's sitting on my shelf) mainly it's not in there because that's a list of his more 'popular' books, and I ummed and ahhed about putting some mention of it in the career section instead, but felt that might look a bit strange placement-wise... but I'm pretty flexible generally - at the moment it's not in in the same way that his publications list is not in...but really - could be either way... Fayedizard (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a publication list we can link to? I can't find one. Hekerui (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] (right there on his official home page, which is already linked.)T R 11:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a tid bit about the "The Large scale ..." book in the career section connecting it to the Adams prize he won with Penrose on the same subject.T R 11:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
*With the help of his doctoral tutor, Dennis William Sciama, he returned to working on his PhD after the disease had stabilised - his disease isn't mentioned as of yet except in the lead. Could do with being clarified.
I agree with the comments above regarding length. I was surprised how short it was. However, I cannot see anything that is obviously missing, and its conciseness is a positive as well - a fair plenty of articles can be overwritten. The main section I thought could be significantly improved or expanded was his written work. It seems more of a list than any extensive prose. 2.26.51.191 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um - I'm a little confused... the sentence before the Sciama line discusses the disease directly -"Hawking started developing symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as soon as he arrived at Cambridge and did not distinguish himself in his first two years at that institution" have I missunderstood? Fayedizard (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was me. I completely misunderstood that sentence. 2.28.96.20 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It is in a much better situation then it was months before. The prose is brilliant and I see no problems in the article. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I just read this while on a treadmill and bike at the gym on a smartphone. Reads very well. I do wonder whether a little more on some of his work in physics and cosmology could be included, but don't consider this a deal-breaker as the article is not short as such....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seems overlinked. Why is "British (people)" linked at the opening? Who's going to divert there? World War II seems hardly relevant enough to dilute the valuable links. "Blue Room" is in the White House, and tells you that at the target article; so there's no need to link directly to White House.
Typo: his arrival
"speech-generating device" ... I'm moving that linked article so it includes the hyphen. Tony (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's hugely improved since it's last turn under the editorial microscope. Roger (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It might be regarded as recentism but I think there is room for a line or two about his role in the Paralympic Games opening. His statement: "We live in a universe governed by rational laws that we can discover and understand. Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious." is quoted in 2012 Summer Paralympics opening ceremony#Enlightenment and reported in a wide variety of WP:RS media. Roger (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm currently just blanking on the right way of saying it... are you thinking the popular culture section or as part of the disability section?Fayedizard (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, as an example of how his struggle with his illness has given him an iconic status?T R 10:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put it under "Popular culture" - it's comparable to tv appearances. His "iconic status" is a different topic. Roger (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.