Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joel S. Levine/archive1

Joel S. Levine

 * Nominator(s): Yitz (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a NASA research scientist who contributed significantly to a number of important spaceflight and national security-related projects, and seems in general to have been involved in a large number of interesting events. I've been trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of NASA scientists, and hope that this article can reach a point where it can be used as an example for future articles. Yitz (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Will do in a few hours. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 07:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ref numbers from this revision.


 * What is ref 1 supporting? I was going to ask if Digital Trends was a high-quality RS, but that cite itself seems to be unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE.
 * Ref 2 has the wrong title
 * this RS/N discussion does not lend me with confidence that Popular Mechanics passes the higher threshold of high-quality RS
 * Be consistent between using NASA as a publisher or using www.nasa.gov as a website; I recommend the former.
 * The h-index and Google scholar stuff are only in the lead. The lead should not contain information only found in there.
 * Most of the citations use websites, not publishers. I'd recommend using publishers, rather than websites.
 * What is Flat Hat News and what makes it high-quality RS?
 * Ref 22 lacks a publisher
 * Ref 26 lacks a publishing location
 * What is SpaceNews, and is it high-quality RS?
 * The masters thesis probably fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
 * Ref 33 has neither a publisher nor a website.
 * What is SpaceFlightNow and is it high-quality RS?
 * EEtimes looks like it's okay, although I'm not familiar with it.
 * Ref 38, Research Gate is probably not the right publisher. Since you're citing the paper itself, you should use the publisher as wherever it was first published.
 * What makes ScienceDaily a high-quality RS?
 * Mashable appears to be a blog, probably not high-quality RS
 * You won't want to cite Studylib.net as the publisher. The publisher should be the journal or magazine the relevant article was published in.
 * And we cite Flat Hat News again, so same question about that source as above.
 * What is Spaceref.com?
 * What is alertnet.org and is it high-quality RS?
 * He's in Category:Jewish scientists, but that isn't verified in the article anywhere.
 * At least one of the external links is used as a reference, so no need to have it as an external link.
 * The source formatting does not follow a consistent style. Some use websites instead of publishers and some the other way around; some do not include publishers; etc.
 * "“We did that for six years,” Levine said. “I was the lecturer and she was the director. I spoke for 45 minutes and then we had questions transmitted back to us in the NASA studio live … and when we ran out of our 60 minutes, they would email them, and sometimes I would spend a day the next day answering questions.”" - Can we get an inline citation for this direct quote?
 * "However, NASA ultimately decided to select the Phoenix stationary lander, designed by the University of Arizona, for the first $400 million Mars Scout Mission." -

Once all this gets sorted out, I will conduct spot checks. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments - almost a full two-thirds of the information in the lead is only found in the lead.

"In 2004, she and Joel developed a series of interactive television programs through NASA and the National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE) to talk about topics in space science once a month [...] addition to reaching out to black students in elementary schools, the Levines also worked with Native Americans living on reservations, developing a summer program for young Native-American students interested in space and science through the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES)" is essentially identical to the source.

"NASA engineers designed the escape capsule over the next week, and it was built by the Chilean Navy" is very close paraphrasing of the Virginia Gazette source.

"The first test attempt was halted after a helicopter crashed just after the fire was ignited. According to The New York Times, the cable from the helicopter snagged on one of the few telephone wires within the 1,000-square-mile San Dimas Experimental Forest, and the helicopter then lost control and crashed. As scores of firefighters reportedly looked on, the helicopter toppled over a ridge and rolled down a 45 degree slope, becoming completely destroyed in the process. The pilot, who was not identified, crawled out and walked away, uninjured" - Is rather close paraphrasing of the NYT source.

" A U-2 plane, flying in a 10-mile loop above the smoke at an altitude of about 65,000 feet, carried a thermal scanner that sent pictures to a receiver at the test site, which measured the fire's intensity and the volume of particulate matter released." - Is also very close paraphrasing

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose for now due to the close paraphrasing concerns. It's going to be a lot easier and more effective to sort out that and the reference quality questions outside of FAC. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Hog Farm, I've been working on your critique, and while I do agree there is a lot to clean up (I was under the mistaken impression that the WP:GAN process was equivalent to peer review, and I was clearly mistaken in that regard), I think I should actually be able to work through all of your concerns within two days or so. Would it be okay with you if the FAC remains up for then, if I can work through the issues you've brought up with minimal hassle? Yitz (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm fine with that. Striking my oppose, as the issues are going to be addressed.  As an aside, GA and FA have very different standards.  For a rather drastic example, this is what my first FA looked like when in passed GA, and when it passed FA, it looked like this. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * Images appear to be freely licensed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Spicy
I have just skimmed the article, but I've noticed some very basic MOS issues - for example we generally don't use honorifics such as as "Dr." (see MOS:DOCTOR), include the names of a subject's non-notable children (WP:BLPNAME), or use contractions ("it still wasn’t able to fill")... Articles that are linked in the main text should not be included in the "See also" section, per MOS:SEEALSO (and it's unusual for featured articles to have a "See also" section as they are meant to be comprehensive). I also have reservations about the Earwig results - while quite a lot of this consists of proper nouns, list of publications and other things that are not copyrightable, there are some passages that are nearly identical to the source and have considerable creative content. Spicy (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

First pass at corrections
Hog Farm I just finished working through your list of potential issues, and I think I got to everything you mentioned (though it's totally possible I may have missed something, of course). I think I addressed Spicy's issues as well. There were a few things you mentioned where some communication is needed, so here you go (sorry if the formatting is a bit wonky btw):


 * What is ref 1 supporting? I was going to ask if Digital Trends was a high-quality RS, but that cite itself seems to be unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE.
 * Removed unnecessary reference as per your advice


 * this RS/N discussion does not lend me with confidence that Popular Mechanics passes the higher threshold of high-quality RS
 * Replaced with better source


 * Be consistent between using NASA as a publisher or using www.nasa.gov as a website; I recommend the former.
 * Based on conversation with some senior editors on Discord, this may not be correct advice, as “website ends up in the metadata and fundamentally you're citing the work, not the publisher.” That being said, I tried to make everything consistent, so we're probably good here (though it should also be noted that metadata isn't my area of specialty, so it's worth looking over it to be sure).
 * Never heard the metadata thing and I've got 5 FAs and over 60 GAs, where I've often been asked to use publishers. So if someone comes along to this FAC and starts talking about how using the website parameter is needed, then feel free to ignore my advice here, but I've never heard of the metadata being significant or used for anything now.  Are we data mining wikipedia now?


 * Most of the citations use websites, not publishers. I'd recommend using publishers, rather than websites.
 * See above


 * What is Flat Hat News and what makes it high-quality RS?
 * Reading through The Flat Hat, the paper seems to be pretty prestigious with a stellar history behind it, so I think it should be fine.
 * Somehow, it didn't catch on to me that Flat Hat News and the Flat Hat are the same source. Agree that it looks like it's part of the highest tier of college student papers, and is probably RS for this case.


 * What is SpaceNews, and is it high-quality RS?
 * replaced reference with original NASA press release they copied from to avoid issues


 * The masters thesis probably fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
 * Removed, as it was unnecessary anyway


 * What is SpaceFlightNow and is it high-quality RS?
 * SpaceFlightNow seems to be a news site devoted to contemporary spaceflight news, and appears to be associated with C-Span (or at least can be found here)
 * YEah, it does look like it's associated with CSPAN, so it's probably fine.

vGood catch, it’s not high quality at all, was just recycling content from NASA, which I now have linked
 * What makes ScienceDaily a high-quality RS?
 * Mashable appears to be a blog, probably not high-quality RS
 * See Mashable—they’re a pretty well-established news source


 * What is Spaceref.com?
 * According to http://spaceref.com/press/06.22.00.pr.html, they’re in partnership with Discovery, Inc., so I’d say that qualifies as being well-established enough (though if you disagree I can probably find some alternative source for the info in it)


 * What is alertnet.org and is it high-quality RS?
 * I couldn’t find it on the page, I must have already removed it.
 * I can't find it anymore, either.


 * He's in Category:Jewish scientists, but that isn't verified in the article anywhere.
 * Removed


 * The source formatting does not follow a consistent style. Some use websites instead of publishers and some the other way around; some do not include publishers; etc.
 * I think I got that worked out now, let me know if I messed up anywhere.


 * "However, NASA ultimately decided to select the Phoenix stationary lander, designed by the University of Arizona, for the first $400 million Mars Scout Mission." - [citation needed]
 * Added citation


 * — I also fixed those segments you pointed out that were too similar to their sources, so that should be good now. Yitz (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I've got one last formatting comment. The very last reference, take Brooklyn College and the pipe key out of the title, and then make Brooklyn College the publisher. I'm still not entirely sure about Mashable, but I could well be wrong, so I'll be opening a discussion about the source at WP:RSN. Feel free to contribute your thoughts there. Hog Farm Talk 01:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hog Farm, I really appreciate your input! Just fixed that last reference issue. I would also like to point out that the author of the particular Mashable article used at Joel S. Levine is Lauren Indvik, a very well-respected journalist, from what I can tell from a quick google search. Here's her "about" page on Mashable: https://mashable.com/author/lauren-indvik/. As such, I think we're probably good here, even if Mashable itself turns out not to be reliable enough in general (which I suspect it will be anyway, but that could take a while to determine). Thanks for your help, and let me know if you've got any other suggestions for improvements!
 * Looks like this specific Mashable page is probably fine then. I'm happy with formatting now, and I'll conduct some spot checks for close paraphrasing and source-text integrity. Hog Farm Talk 15:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks on project page. I am not comfortable with some of the results. It looks like the sourcing for this one still needs a tuneup that might be best done outside of FAC, and then a second nomination occur. Hog Farm Talk 16:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm is there anything in particular here that concerns you? Looking through your spot check, I think that I can fix everything you mentioned fairly easily, without taking much longer than I did for the first pass. Yitz (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * By concerned, I guess I kinda need to explain how I approach spot-checks: like an audit. If I find close-paraphrasing or source-text integrity lapses, then I find that a bit concerning and need to increase the theoretical control risk.  And to keep the risk that I pass a source review when I shouldn't, I compensate by reducing detection risk by conducting more spot checks.  So I'll give this another round of spot checks.  Sorry this is taking so long, I've been kinda busy all of a sudden. Hog Farm Talk 01:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly fine, take all the time you need! I'm really thankful you're taking the time to do this at all, tbh :) Yitz (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose and Suggest withdrawal
Based on the lack of preparedness of the citations and sourcing (along with MOS issues), I suggest this article be withdrawn and referred to peer review. A strong NPOV check is going to be needed; Levine has at least five papers published in a journal that has been called predatory and fringe, Journal of Cosmology. This suggests a very close look at sourcing will be needed, after the sources and citations here are cleared up. If he publishes in predatory journals, one can wonder what criticism there is of his work. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Further, appropriateness of sourcing needs to be reviewed throughout. As an example, Wikipedia cannot use his own W&M profile to source an external fact like:
 * an award given to only 37 NASA and NACA researchers as of his induction. Levine is the youngest member in the Hall of Honor as of February 1, 2021.[1]
 * Anything not related to his position at W&M needs to be independently sourced— particularly a claim such as the example given above (which should be independently sourced to NASA or other). This article’s sourcing would be better examined off-FAC, at peer review. A good deal of the bios used are most likely submitted by ... him.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then we have glaring problems of the type of this paragraph:
 * In 1974, the Soviet spacecraft Mars 6 crash-landed on Mars. Before crashing, an onboard ion pump sent a brief message signaling that the pump was working harder than scientists expected. One of several explanations for the pump not working properly was the presence of an unknown amount of argon gas in the atmosphere of Mars, which could have been very hard to pump out of the device. NASA was fearful that the Viking lander's ion pump could also be overloaded if there was too much argon in the Martian atmosphere.[29] Levine was selected as a Guest Investigator on the NASA Copernicus Orbiting Astronomical Observatory, where he was able to obtain the first measurements of atomic hydrogen in the upper atmosphere of Mars at solar minimum prior to the Viking encounter with Mars. As a result of his observations, Levine developed a new model of the Martian upper atmosphere, which included argon, helium, and atomic hydrogen. Levine's work modeling the concentration of argon in the Martian atmosphere was considered crucial to the Viking Program's successful soft landings on the surface of Mars.[30][31]

The entire first portion is not about him, the entire second portion is puffery and is sourced TO him (primary); not a third-party, independent source about him in the entire para. Overreliance on primary sources. The article actually should have a big maintenance tag at the top, rather than being at FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Another issue is a good deal of the article is about trivia ... conferences he has chaired and the like. This article is quite promotional. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I can’t find a single thing in this source to support a single piece of the text:
 * Levine served as Principal Investigator of several NASA research programs and projects dealing with atmospheric chemistry, photochemical modeling of the atmosphere over geological time, atmospheric trace gases produced by atmospheric lightning and biogenic activity, fires, and global warming. Levine’s Mars-related research activities continued in 1998, when he was appointed Chief Scientist of the proposed NASA/French Space Agency (CNES) Mars Airplane Package Mission (MAP).[32]

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A good deal of the text is not about Levine, and a number of the sources do not even mention him (WP:SYNTH). Sample: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-060205.html The closer I look, the less the article looks like a BLP, and the more it looks promotional. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost the entire section “Preservation of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights” is built upon either sources that do not mention Levine, or ... Levine himself. Third-party, independent sources talking about Levine himself are scarce. That doesn’t mean these sources don’t exist, but this content is not correctly sourced, and UNDUE weight is given to parts of the story that are not about Levine. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nice catch! I didn't realize those journals were problematic. Hog Farm said they'd do another spot check so I'll keep it here for now until that happens, but I'll move it if they agree with you. For now, should I remove those journals from the page? (it looks like it's only one submission, just split up into five parts.) Also, if you don't mind me asking, what MoS issues are you noticing? Yitz (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noticed you added to your response, thanks for the further details. Yitz (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Not a catch at all; they are highlighted in glorious red by Headbomb’s unreliable sources script. This article cannot be fixed with a source check.  It needs a top-to-bottom rewrite, considerable cleanup, and the involvement of some experienced editors. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I missed your question about MOS issues; see the corrections I already made to the article. And Spicy’s comments. And my comments below.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of the article is written similarly to the “Role in rescue mission to save trapped miners” section. The first paragraph goes into excess detail about the Chilean miners, which is available in that article. This is followed by a one-sentence stubby para that is correctly cited. The third para is an unnecessary quote from Levine. The fourth paragraph includes, as in most cases, some sources that never mention Levine and excess detail about the event rather than biographical information about Levine. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The Earwig results highlighted above by also are significant enough to give rise to concerns that the article should have a copyvio tag on it. This article is almost brand new; there is little change those Earwig results are due to backwards copies (the article takes too much content from his William & Mary bio, likely written by him ... and even if written by him, still has to be paraphrased). The articles feels almost like a hoax. . Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * While I deeply appreciate your criticism, I would like to respectfully push pack against your assertion that this article may be a hoax or a promotional attempt. I'm a 19 year old, autistic, ADHD nerd who sometimes gets fixated on random topics, and am currently kind of obsessed with how the personal lives of scientists and their work intersect (feel free to check out my sandbox and user history to see what I've been working on for evidence of that). Yes, I may have nominated this article prematurely, and may have judged myself a better writer than I actually am, but I can promise you that I am not editing Wikipedia with negative intent in mind. Levine is an actual NASA scientist with a history that I genuinely believe is notable, despite any questionable publishing decisions he may have made, or any mistakes that I've made while writing about him. A quick search shows that I did not invent a NASA scientist where no scientist exists, and while I know that this was not your intention, your suspicion does pain me a little when there is such an abundance of evidence as to notability. Also, I would like to push back to some degree against your assertion that I simply copied the William & Mary source. While I did use it to find a number of further articles written by or about him, I believe that if you look closer, you'll find the only identical/nearly identical phrasing are in place names and titles, which cannot be altered. I do agree with most of your criticism, however, and will try to fix the other issues that you brought up. Yitz (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the “feels like a hoax” and have struck it (and never meant to say the article or the person was a hoax, as Levine clearly is not, just that the unsourced bits read like a hoax article would). I know you did not invent Levine or his accomplishments, which are real, but we need for his bio to read like a proper bio.  I am hoping that back in 2010 when he published in the predatory journals, they were less predatory?  You have handled the criticism of the article with considerable and commendable maturity; perhaps spend some time at WP:FA looking through bios of scientists to see how to reorient the article? Starting over by finding secondary sources and reporting only what they say *about him specifically*, and then using his own bio (W&M) to fill in only uncontroverial basic info (eg birthdate) would work.  You have made a fine effort; now to get it right.  Good luck, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying; your wording kind of freaked me out there and I apologize if I responded too sharply. For now I would like to keep the article on FAC, as I honestly don't really see what the point of withdrawal would be at this stage—it's not harming anyone by being in the queue for a bit longer than perhaps it technically should have if I was better prepared; I fully plan on addressing all of the concerns here in a timely fashion; and based on a brief Discord conversation with other members of WP:SPF, it sounds like this really isn't an unusual amount of work to have to do during this process. I'll probably have some amount of pushback against some specifics of your criticism as I get to it, but on the whole I'm with you on what needs to be changed.
 * Hi Yitz, I can understand the "not harming anyone" comment but we try to keep the FAC queue ticking over as best we can and articles that need a lot of attention from our scarce reviewer base should be worked on away from FAC, ideally given a friendly critique at Peer Review, then re-nominated. I'm therefore going to archive the nom and hope to see it back here in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Going back to earlier in the discussion, it looks like the first major public critique of Journal of Cosmology was in 2011, while Levine published there in 2010, along with James B. Garvin, who also seems like a totally respectable NASA scientist. This leads me to believe that this was probably not a malicious activity, though of course I can't say for sure. If you want I can remove those references from the bibliography, though I'm not sure if that would be proper or not to do. Yitz (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The first criticism as reported by Wikipedia is not the same thing as the first criticism. And since the journal was only founded in 2009, it was criticized quickly at any rate.  But those papers have been removed, and this one item is besides the (much larger) point.  This bio is not sourced correctly at all, and the nomination should not be at FAC; it can be repaired more effectively off-FAC, as it needs a top-to-bottom rewrite with appropriate use of secondary sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The awards section needs to be prosified (with trivia removed), and the section headings need to be shortened, see WP:WIAFA and WP:MSH; several of the section headings are unnecessarily repeating words. The WP:LEAD is inadequate and not a summary of the article. There is not a consistent page numbering scheme; how many digits are repeated on page numbers in citations? MOS:LQ odd placement of punc relative to quotes everywhere. Incorrect use of italics, eg newspapers ... All of this is work that can be addressed at WP:PR, and is too much to have to check and re-check in the course of a FAC. No, this is not a normal amount of work to do during a FAC, and it is not reasonable to expect reviewers to have to come back and strike and continue to review an article with this many issues, that is not prepared for FAC. I haven’t even started listing prose redundancies and issues (starting with “also” in the lead). This kind of extended work is best done at peer review where people can enter comments without an obligation to revisit and strike. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)