Talk:HiPER

HiPER was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 13, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
February 6, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 24, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Note to GA reviewers[edit]

This article has gone through a recent peer review and most of the comments were in terms of readability. I have attempted to incorporate them where possible. The article has also been reviewed by one of the principle researchers on the topic, who "signed off" on the factual accuracy (and pointed out a few gr and sp's too). Only minor edits have been carried out on the article for some time now.

The peer review did note a potential problem during GA, that there are only two refs, only one of which is linkable, and is not used as an in-line. The last point is due to the fact that the vast majority of the factual items in this article are taken from the linked source, so using an inline would be "redundant" because it would be repeated for just about every statement. The only exceptions are those that came from e-mails with Mike Dunne (as noted). The peer reviewer mentioned that I might want to place these here, I'd like to know what you all think. I am open to suggestions on this issue.

Maury 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In-line citations[edit]

For this to gain GA status, there must be inline citations. I'd say one per paragraph would suffice, but as many as possible are better. Even if the citations are very repetitive (they're all from one source), you should still put in-line citations. Take a look at California Gold Rush, a featured article. Even though there is one book cited like 25 times, in-line citations are given and page numbers are given after every sentence or two. That's what you should aim for. Go. Be Free. Jolb 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is the citation this work was taken from is an e-document. There aren't really any pages. And you don't tag is as lacking citations because of this. Maury 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of e-mails as source[edit]

Wikipedia:Verifiability requires "that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Unless I'm missing something, this means that unpublished sources (like e-mails) cannot be cited as references. I don't think that posting the e-mails to the Talk page would make a difference to this, since they would still be unverifiable. EALacey 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that pasting an e-mail here would count as publishing. Maury 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there would remain no way of verifying the origin of the e-mail. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." There's an exception under some circumstances for self-published sources, but I don't think this would qualify. Is there really no published work that can be cited in this article? EALacey 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is based on a published source, linked in the References section. The e-mails were used for fact checking and some grammar points. Maury 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, none of those clauses applies anyway. An e-mail is not a BBS, wiki or UseNet post. The issue in these cases is that it is easy to fake your identity, but the same is not true in e-mail. If you write an e-mail to "Maury Markowitz" and he replies with answers that suggest it is indeed Maury Markowitz, then it is reasonable to assume it is, in fact, Maury Markowitz. In this case the e-mail was with the project lead in the UK, and I feel more than reasonably content with assuming I was actually talking to Mike Dunne. Maury 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that I thought a post on Wikipedia about an e-mail wouldn't be a reliable source for the contents of that e-mail. I'm certainly not doubting the authenticity of the e-mails in question, merely wondering how they could be cited under the Verifiability policy. They're verifiable to the recipient, yes, but not to "any reader".

It occurs to me now that if you could get the author to publish the e-mails (or the information in them) on his own website, that would presumably be citeable under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. But if the entire article is based on sources other than the e-mails, is it necessary to cite the e-mails at all? EALacey 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signed emails, as in by a public key on a public keyserver should be allowed to be cited because presumably they were signed with the private key of the verified person (unless that is stolen somehow, and revoked, which could be checked periodically)

Actually, I guess not. The information in them was limited to "missing holes" in the original reference, things I was able to guess by looking at the image. Maury 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failed[edit]

This article is good except for thre lack of inline citations. I understand there is currently discussionm about what to do but as of now this article doesn't meet the GA criteria and I am therefore failing it. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to take it to a GA review. Tarret 14:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to GAR and fail endorsed. See the link in the article history for further comments. Geometry guy 20:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on HiPER. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]