Talk:Richard Feynman/GA1

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Richard Feynman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is undergoing a review as part of the Good Article sweeps performed by the WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I am in the process of reviewing the article and should have a complete review posted within a day or two. A quick glance reveals a few concerns that will need to be addressed:


 * 1) The lead section is too long. It should be a maximum of four paragraphs. This could be fixed by joining the fourth and fifth paragraphs.
 * 2) Much of the article is unreferenced, including quotations and entire paragraphs. It will need to be thoroughly referenced in order to remain listed as a Good Article.
 * 3) The picture of the stamp doesn't have an adequate fair use rationale. Neither does the book picture (FeynmanLecturesOnPhysics.jpg). I don't believe that a fair use claim could be made for the book, because it doesn't provide commentary on any aspect of the surrounding text.
 * 4) The description page for the infobox image should have a link to the original source.
 * 5) The Further reading section is far too long. There is no need to list that many sources, so it should be trimmed quite a bit.
 * 6) Some of the book references are missing page numbers.
 * 7) Some of the web references are missing information (eg. access dates).

These will all need to be addressed, and editors can begin addressing them now. There is no need to wait for the full review. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm now delisting this article as a GA, as it does not meet the criteria, and there are no signs that it will in the near future. I've attempted to clean up the article a bit, and have also left tags where further clean-up is needed.
 * The lead is now four paragraphs, but still does not summarize the article, and contains unhelpful digressions and statements of opinion. It needs to be rewritten.
 * The article fails to meet WP:V and WP:RS by a mile. There are very few reliable secondary sources and the reader might wonder whether much of the text was sourced from Feynman's own anecdotes and interviews.
 * Undue weight is given to the (almost entirely unsourced) section on the Challenger disaster.
 * I have moved most of the further reading to a "bibliography" section per WP:LAYOUT, but it still needs to be cleaned up.
 * Good luck to anyone interested in improving the article. Geometry guy 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

students
I think for doctoral students the policy is we only include those with a WP article, but I am subject to correction here. A notable person normally has many students, some of whom turn out much less notable than he. The documentation for Curtwright is reliable enough, though, if we do usually add them all.