Talk:Peter Jalowiczor

Gas worker
What is that? Maybe add a wikilink? Looking good, btw! Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  23:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks! --Nerd1a4i (talk)

Edits to research section
I have made a rather significant series of edits to the research section, and I'd like to explain my rationale. (Since I voted to redirect the article in the ongoing AfD, I don't want to create the appearance of impropriety.) First, as a matter of organization, it makes sense to merge the three subsections and to discuss his work chronologically. Second, BLPs do not typically give citation counts for each paper unless the citation count itself is noteworthy for some reason (e.g., if it was the most-cited paper in the past decade); citation counts will also become out-of-date when the work is cited again. Moreover, I think that according undue attention to citation counts, particularly for co-authored papers, creates an appearance that the article is straining to create notability. Third, I believe that the g-index was miscalculated; since he has been in the author list of two papers, he can't have a g-index higher than 2 (but please correct me if I am wrong). Fourth, on a related note, citation metrics consider papers on which a person was an author, not those in which a person was mentioned in acknowledgments. Finally, I removed an erroneous link to a rock band. In the course of making these changes, I did remove some sources, but they were duplicative of other sources in the article.

If someone disagrees with these changes, I would be happy to discuss them, but I think that they streamline the research section. Best, Astro4686 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree rather wholeheartedly with your edits to Peter Jalowiczor. First, having one big block of text makes it harder to read - it looked better on the page to have the multiple sections. Second, the page was organized in chronological order, with the discovery and work on each project in a section, and then the final section talking about the specifics of the papers themselves, which I thought made it a little more logical. As for the citation count, I can remove those, but that was to include his h-index and g-index (I don't know whether or not the g-index was miscalculated; someone in the -help IRC channel calculated it for me; however, I don't believe it is two), which may also be worthy of being removed; that's up for debate. Removing the sources seems an unhelpful edit as I used the sources for specific details the way it was originally set up, and they did not duplicate each other. I thank you for taking an interest in the article, but in this case I ask that you rollback the edit (or I can rollback myself) and in that case we can then move on and remove citation counts or fix the link or what have you as is deemed necessary. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply. Hi No hard feelings here -- let's discuss this. Maybe rather than one big edit by me, it would be better to discuss my concerns issue-by-issue. (1) Regarding citations, if you look at other articles which mention someone's published work, they don't give a paper-by-paper count of citations. Moreover, with the exception of the h-index, all of the information given in "Published work" is duplicative of information given in the references at the end. For example, if someone wants to know the title of the paper or the author list, they can look at the footnotes. Moreover, both of those papers were discussed in the previous two subsections. I think that it interrupts the flow of the text to have a third section that mostly repeats the footnotes. (2) As for the information being in chronological order, it is currently written in reverse chronological order. The exoplanet research is more recent, and it is listed first. Generally, for biographies, the oldest information comes first, with the most recent information coming last.


 * What do you think about (1) and (2)? Are they changes that you might agree to in some amended form? I have comments about some of the sources, too, but that can wait for later. Best, Astro4686 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply. Hello ; thanks for your more extensive reasoning. Let me start with (2) - I would be very willing to change the order of the two sections, however, I listed it in that order as the more notable accomplishment was the discovery of the exoplanets and I thought that might be how it should be ordered; if you don't think so, I can switch that. As for (1), I'm not quite sure that's the case - instead of breaking up the text, I find it a smoother transition into his general research and the published work that resulted from it, plus it includes extra information not necessarily included in the footnotes. Thanks again for your discussion! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)