Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kardashev scale/archive1

Kardashev scale
(self-nomination) I put this through peer review with no response. I believe it needs some more work, nothing very major, but I do not have the time right now to do it. Basically, I would like an opinion as to if this is to featured article specifications--in that does it need more work. My gripes and grievances are listed on the to-do list on the article's talk page- please look at it, in the "copy" of what I originally posted on peer review. I know this is nonstandard, but basically, I want to know if no one responded on peer review because the article was up to spec, or because they were not interested. Well on to the discussion. 01:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) Revised by -- 00:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) so it did not take up so much of the page. Please check the article's talk page.


 * Object - no lead image (hardly any images at all); the lead is far too long and detailed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you objecting on the idea that the first section really should be split into 5 (I think it should, see the talk page)? Or are you objecting because there is too much information? --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 00:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Images added and then removed, I can't win! --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 17:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Images addded
 * Lead shortenned, second half move to its own section, more appropriate due to the nature of applying the Kardashev scale to human civilization, whose type does not yet exist. Has the page been fixed to your satisfaction? --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 03:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Object. 1) The "hypothetical futures" section seems to be original research. 2) The "Current values" table and calculations report ten or even thirteen significant digits, which conveys false precision. 3) The calculations after the table need to be explained better. 4) Overall the article seems to be a mix of science, science fiction and unfalsifiable speculation. Maybe the science and the fiction should be split into separate articles. PRiis 20:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) PRiis 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I broght together many souces. A lot of people say this stuff, just that it is all over the place, from Issac Asimov to Carl Sagan to Stephen Hawking. That is why there are so many sources. That reminds me that I have to include Stephen Hawking's life in the universe cd as a source, it has a large discussion of hypotheticals by Hawking himself, but not in relation to Kardashev Scale, but into information expansion and anthorpic theory, but along pararell lines of discussion of net energy needed to maintain sentient being status (sentient beings are both entropic and anti-entropic) grows on a exponential scale in relation to the real information or technology produced by that being and not by its biological needs. 2)The lowest I can see going is to the thousandth decimal place, the percision is there because we are talking about a number that is 10^18, derived from values that are much smaller than it. You can know something to the trillionth place, especially if you are measuring it by in units that are one trillionth the size of what you are expressing it as in the end product. (ie. You can say there are 0.254233 trillion tribbles, if you have a report saying that there are 254,233,000,000 tribbles. Similarly, even though we are calculating using so-called exact values of the population, we are taking it to a percission where if we are off by 200,000 watts per person in energy consumption, and 10 million persons in the total population, changes would not be reprsented until appoximately the 13th signifcant figure if dealing with values in the 10^16 range. Note that, if the Kardashev scale value was closer to one, this type of percision would be inapproriate, but in the midsection of this logathmic scale, it is specially appropriate due to the statistical values we know. 3) Could you help me clean up the calculations, I though a page of explaination was enough. Also, from information I found, unfortunately we may not know what the true value is for 2005 due to changes in China's infrastructure (Three Gorges Dam) and the questionable numbers coming from a redeveloping Iraq (ie, do you count energy that was never consumed). 4) It is a mix of science that has been co-opted by science fiction. The specualtion is clearly noted, in my opinon. --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 02:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I was too terse. Let me clarify. 1) Section 4.2, Hypothetical futures: you should probably say who--specifically--thought of this scenario and assigned the values to each step. If that person is you, then it's original research. So the way to resolve this would be to cite where the information in this section came from. 2) Significant figures: it's the number of figures in the mantissa that matters. Your example above has six significant figures whether you express it in nanotribbles or exatribbles. World population estimates have an error on the order of 1% according to the UN. I don't know what the error on the energy production estimate would be, but I'd guess it's on the same order. No answer you derive from these numbers can have more precision than that. Including more significant figures is just misleading. I'd guess three significant figures would be right, but I assume you did the calculations so you can say for sure. 3) I'm referring here to the calculation after the table, where, apparently, you're estimating the mtoes for years 2004 and 2005. I can't find the page of explanation for these calculations that you refer to above. I'm just saying you should state what you're showing in these calculations without forcing the reader to figure out what they are by trying to see what numbers match with what. Whether those calculations even need to be included at all is a separate question. 4) Maybe this is not actionable--I'll defer to the opionions of others on this. But look at Fermi paradox to see how this sort of material can be handled. PRiis 18:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I will put in the sources for each part, since I have now seperated them and made them into tables, making sources much easier 2)I will defer to you on significant figures. That said, I would go to the thousandths place (0.814 for example), which still delinates differences between years. 3) I was using page as an exagerative word, I misunderstood you, I was refering to the calculations as an explaination itself, but I will annotate them, or remove them, if others agree to the removal of 2004 and 2005. 4( I will look into the fermi paradox page --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 19:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1)sources added to hypothetical futures--[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 20:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2)Fixed current values table 3) Provided explaination --[[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]]]] 20:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*Support: This article meets all the main criteria for being a featured article - it is exceptionally informative and easy to read, even for the layman, it is comprehensive and well written. As for accuracy, there is no apparent disagreement in the talk pages, and it contains Italic textmany references as well as numerous explinations on errata by the chief contributor. It has a concise opening and table of contents, and contains well made graphics. All while being on an utterly fascinating subject - it is a great example of a featured article. Jeffrey O. Gustafson 7 Jan 2005


 * Object. Article has improved a lot but it is still a mess. (1) I have tried very hard to understand the diagram at Image:Development-Diagram.gif and I have failed. What do the axes represent? What do the coloured areas and lines represent? The image description talks about features like "rotating triangles" and "red curve" that I cannot identify on the diagram. You can see at Image talk:Development-Diagram.gif that I am not the only one to have trouble. (2) The images in section 2 don't appear to illustrate the text. (3) The numbers in the table in section 5 have ludicrous precision. (4) Wikipedia is not a forum for speculation, nor for original research. We must include only verifiable claims. Because speculation inherently cannot be verified it is necessary to identify who is responsible for each piece of speculation. For example, section 1.1 says "predictions are from what seems most likely given current trends in research." That is no good: "what seems most likely" is someone's point of view. This section must say something like, "Professor X proposes the following timeline" and cite the paper where he or she proposes it. Section 2 needs to name the most notable people making the arguments for and against. Section 3 says "given the fact that there must be a transition between civilization periods for each level". I don't think it's a fact, but rather someone's theory. Whose is it and what do they mean by "transition"? And so on. Almost every paragraph has speculation masquerading as fact, or weasel words like "Many individuals have pointed to". Gdr 20:22, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * Who reposted the nomination? I self-nomed a few weeks ago, but not this time. --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 15:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It was posted by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson on 2005-01-07 Gdr 18:37, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)