Talk:Robert Ehrlich (physicist)

Untitled
This is a draft talk page for the proposed page about Robert Ehrlich (physicist). Thank you for taking a look. 24.210.152.37 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC) I'm adding a little more, just to see what happens. 24.210.152.37 (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Categories and References
I have found several categories, in Ehrlich's co-author Maria Dworzecka's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Dworzecka which appear to be applicable to him. Here they are - without the formatting in double brackets (so as to avoid getting a "Review Pending Please be Patient" notice:

Category:Living people Category:George Mason University faculty Category:Fellows of the American Physical Society Category:Physics educators Category:American physicists Category:Brooklyn College Alumni Category:Columbia University Alumni

However, when I add them at the foot of the draft, beneath the Authority Control, and then click on Show Preview, I don't see these categories.

Moreover, Dworzecka's page has references done according to a different technique than I did for Ehrlich. Is use of the technique in Dworzecka's page mandatory for Ehrlich's also? I was unaware of this technique until just now.2603:6010:4E42:500:D8FC:CFB9:1B64:2873 (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Revisions published April 15, 2021
I made further changes to the draft document in hopes that a reviewer will approve them. Under External Links, it is *Ehrlich's* Google Scholar page, not Mason's. The sentence under Publications now refers readers to the External Links page so that they can access that Google Scholar page: a previous reviewer left the sentence incomplete.

If further work is required, then please tell me (via this talk page) what more is needed from me. I hope that will not be necessary, from both the standpoint of Ehrlich's notability and from the quality of the page itself.2603:6010:4E42:500:9869:B813:E466:894C (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Appeal to CommanderWaterford for another look
April 16, 2021: I posted the following on CommanderWaterford's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CommanderWaterford#Robert_Ehrlich_%28physicist%29

Hello CommanderWaterford, On March 20, shortly after I submitted the draft for Robert Ehrlich (physicist), you declined it. The draft has undergone substantial revision, most of which I did myself. I'll be grateful if you'd take another look. Here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Ehrlich_(physicist) 2603:6010:4E42:500:E014:EBE1:EAA3:8154 (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You resubmitted the draft and I am sure that @DGG - after naming my review "inappropriate" - will find time to review it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If DGG finds time to call the review inappropriate I am sure that he will find time to review it, you already resubmitted it, I pinged him on the draft talk page. If not him perhaps another more experienced Reviewer will have a look at it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Eventually I discovered that DGG has said in his talk page that he only reviews drafts once. He then leaves it to other reviewers. Apparently he considers it better that more than one reviewer should work on a draft. Before I read that, I repeatedly tried to get a response from him.

What he did was remove some information under Personal Life, and move Ehrlich's Google Scholar page to a new External Links section. But additional cleanup was still necessary. He labeled his work Initial cleanup. I thought he would return to do more, but that didn't happen.

Are you in a position to proceed with further review? And, if you won't be doing so, what else might I do to get the Ehrlich draft finalized?


 * Here's what DGG has on his talk page: I'm not perfect, and I therefore do not review a draft more than once--some other reviewer may disagree, and it certainly happens that drafts I do not pass are passed by someone else, and some of them are kept, some deleted.2603:6010:4E42:500:916F:F124:AA8C:9089 (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

More exactly, I sometimes will review a second time if it's to check added material for what I think might become a satisfactory article. But if I think that unlikely, it's fairer to the contributor if more than one person takes a look at it. In this case, the updates are sufficient, and I'm accepting it.  DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)