Talk:Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 12:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a GA review of this article. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion
A far reaching claim is present in two places: Such would need particularly strong sourcing, and it has no sourcing at all. Also the articles on him and the field do not make this claim. Suggest dialing it back or getting strong sourcing for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "K. Eric Drexler, founder of the field of molecular nanotechnology" (Resolved  North8000  (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
 * "K. Eric Drexler was the first person to develop the concepts of nanotechnology" (Resolved  North8000  (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC))


 * The entire paragraph (on which the sentence in the lead is based) is sourced to Edwards. I can try to get additional sources, but this is unlikely to happen until next week since my Ph.D. thesis is due this Friday. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No hurry, but such a far reaching and likely to be contested claim/statement is going to need very strong sourcing to be put in the voice of Wikipedia. Even if one article claimed it, I don't think that such would be enough. And in a quick skim of the cited source, I don't see even it making that claim. An alternative is to just dial it/them back a bit. Sincerely,   North8000 (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Resolved.  North8000  (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast. :-) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for your patience. I've consulted a few extra sources and reworded both of these sentences: "K. Eric Drexler, the originator of the conceptual basis of molecular nanotechnology," and "K. Eric Drexler is generally considered to have written the first scholarly paper on the topic of nanotechnology, and was a key figure in popularizing these concepts through several publications and advocacy work." Is that better?  I look forward to the rest of your review. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah....I just happened to be watching and think we both edited at the same time.   Cool! Resolved.  North8000  (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What an interesting and well-written article! And this is in an area which is complex on several levels (the Science, the debates etc.). I'm pretty much done reviewing and have a question on one remaining item. The article describes Smalley making what I think is is an implausible claim: "Smalley recounted his recent exprerience during an outreach visit to middle and high school students, saying that nearly half of them thought that self-replicating nanorobots were possible and that most were worried about the results of them spreading across the world. "  I would think it amazing if even 5% of students were even aware of the (putative) possibility of self-replicating nanorobots, much less being concerned about them taking over the world. Were there any missing nuances / qualifiers in the actual statement? (such as those being nanotechnology students?). If it stands as-is (e.g. Smalley making such an implausible claim) the I think it would need a source. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The source is, second paragraph from the bottom. Smalley was actually talking about the winning essays written after the outreach event rather than the students at the event itself, something that I had missed.  Thanks for catching that! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool!  Resolved.   Nice work!   North8000  (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist
Well-written Factually accurate and verifiable Broad in its coverage Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Illustrated, if possible, by images
 * Meets this criteria.  North8000  (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria.  North8000  (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria.  North8000  (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria.  North8000  (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria.  Has 9 images.  The 2 non-free images have article-specific use rationales. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)