Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Astrophysics Data System

Astrophysics Data System
The ADS is a vital research tool for astronomers, and contributes as much to annual astronomical output as all the astronomers in France. My PhD would probably have taken me about 40 years to do without it, so I thought it was deserving of a good article. I've worked on it over the last few days and thought I would propose it here as I think it is comprehensive and hopefully reasonably interesting and enlightening for non-astronomers. Worldtraveller 16:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. A good summary, but it seems to fall short of comprehensiveness. Note for instance the length of the sections. Everyking 17:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What more would you like to know? If you tell me I'll include it.  Which sections are shorter than they could be? Worldtraveller 18:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the sections are only a paragraph or two long. Everyking 18:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A section doesn't necessarily need to be long to be comprehensive. Please indicate what you think is missing so I can rectify it. Worldtraveller 18:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support from this ex-astronomer. Well done, sir. ADS was fortunate to be there just as the web was taking off. Query whether it is worth mentioning other on-line sources of academic journal articles, such as http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph ? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point - I'll add details of astro-ph and ADS's integration with it. Worldtraveller 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * done that now - Worldtraveller 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks pretty good to me, and meets all the criteria. Giano | talk 19:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, well organized and seems to provide a pretty comprehensive range of info. Uber nemo 04:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object- for now. My main issue is with the references.  You have them, but there is no way to tell what fact leads to what reference.  (Subsequently, the requests for reference I list here would probably be solved by simply writing what the cite is, like this: People choking on chicken nuggets is bad for business (Smith, Jonsey) where a reference by Smith and Jonsey is listed in references below.)  Okay, so what is the cite for these statements?:
 * Several studies have estimated quantitatively how much more efficient ADS has made astronomy; one estimated that ADS increased the efficiency of astronomical research by 333 full-time equivalent research years per year...
 * "one [study]" - which one?
 * ...and another found that in 2002 its effect was equivalent to 736 full-time researchers, or all the astronomical research done in France.
 * "another [study]" - which one?
 * ADS has allowed literature searches that would previously have taken days or weeks to carry out to be completed in seconds, and it is estimated that ADS has increased the readership and use of the astronomical literature by a factor of about three since its inception.
 * Estimated by whom?
 * In monetary terms, this increase in efficiency represents a considerable amount. There are about 12,000 active astronomical researchers worldwide, so ADS is the equivalent of about 5% of the working population of astronomers. The global astronomical research budget is estimated at between 4,000 and 5,000 million USD...
 * Who's estimate is it? To put weight to the following statement, some verification would be helpful.
 * so the value of ADS to astronomy would be about 200–250 million USD annually. Its operating budget is a small fraction of this amount.
 * Not as an actionable objection, but as a matter of curiosity, what is its budget?
 * Studies reveal that the highest per-capita users of ADS are France and Netherlands-based astronomers, and while more developed countries (measured by GDP per capita) use the system more than less developed countries; the relationship between GDP per capita and ADS use is not linear. The range of ADS uses per capita far exceeds the range of GDPs per capita, and basic research carried out in a country, as measured by ADS usage, has been found to be proportional to the square of the country's GDP divided by its population.
 * Which studies?
 * ADS usage statistics also suggest that astronomers in more developed countries tend to be more productive than those in less developed countries.
 * Is there a link to this study?
 * Statistics also imply that astronomers in European cultures carry out about three times as much research as those in Asian cultures, perhaps implying cultural differences in the importance attached to astronomical research.
 * "Statistics also imply..." Which statistics? Can you provide any more information on the implication you provide, offer a counterargument to the implication, or provide a reference or link to one who has made it?


 * Citing these few things would also put weight to the significant claims mentioned in the opening paragraph.


 * Additionally, and this is just my curiosity again, to your knowledge does any search engine in wide use by the public contain language / code / technilogical advancements introduced by ADS? What about other scientific fields (medicine, for instance).  Or is ADS's innovations remain limited to ADS itself.  Also, does NASA fund ADS exclusively, or does it recieve help.  And do journals have to pay to be listed?


 * Don't get me wrong, this was an amazing article about a fascinating subject. I look forward to changing my vote in the coming days. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Jeffrey, for your very detailed and helpful comments, and sorry it's taken me a few days to respond fully (thanks to Raul for letting the nomination stay up for a few days longer as well). I've now added cites to the references used for these various claims.  Regarding the Asian/European cultural claim I can't find any papers countering the claim made in the one I've referenced unfortunately.  I've also not been able to find out yet what ADS's annual budget is, but will make enquiries.  As far as I know, ADS's technology has not been directly adopted by other journal search engines, probably because it was designed by astronomers for astronomers and may not be easily applicable to other disciplines.  NASA does fund ADS exclusively at the moment, I'll add a line about that to the article, and no, journals don't pay to be listed - they're included purely on the basis of astronomical merit.  Thanks again!  Worldtraveller 18:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Great work, and thanks for looking into that information. Enthusiastic Support.   --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Support without reservation. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 13:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)