Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Gilbert

Robert Gilbert
Self-nom. I know that this nomination risks reviewers' objections that the article was recently written. However, I think it's a worthwhile contribution to WP's information on an important, leading-edge science that has changed rapidly over the past few decades, and that in this respect, the article fills a gap in the project. In my view, postponing the nomination for a few months would not result in substantive changes to the text. I hope to be involved in the writing of similar articles on scientists in this area. Tony 00:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. "Being recently written" is not a point that can really be objected on, so long as the article fufils all the requirements.  However, this one is definitely not comprehensive: it contains next to no information on the man himself, focusing almost exclusively on his research, and not even his role in that research. Fieari 01:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead contains considerable summary info on this scientist's career; do we really want a whole lot of personal details? I don't think the readers would be interested. The reason for writing the article was his science. His role in the research has been carefully delineated at numerous points in the text, in particular, who his coworkers were at each point. It's more than most articles give, and in this case, the subject has been the key player in all of the research covered in the article. Tony 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The name of the article is Robert Gilbert. True, the only reason we're interested in him is his work, but that doesn't mean that an article on a man can get away with not being about the man.  If you want an article to be just about his work, it should be titled appropriately.  Consider Marie Curie, the only reason she's famous is because of her work, and yet the article is about her.  Albert Einstein, likewise.  Alan Turing, likewise. Articles about people are about people, not just what they're famous for, but other facts too. In the article itself.  The lead is an introduction, and should describe what is about to be described in more detail. In this respect, the lead isn't actually part of the "article" itself at all.  As such, in an article about a man, you have NOTHING about the man in it. Fieari 04:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The scientists you give as examples all died some time ago, whereas the subject of this nomination is in the middle of his career. A quick survery of articles on living scientists in List of scientists yielded Robert H. Grubbs, Elias James Corey, Manfred Eigen and Henry Taube (died a few months ago), none of which have the personal details you seem to want, but are focussed almost entirely on science and career. The only exception is Yuan T. Lee, which mentions that he played baseball and ping-pong; since he was also active in politics, there's a section on that. Beyond Gilbert's city of residence (implied), his place of work and his age, I'm perplexed as to what kind of private details you think WP readers would be interested in—where he shops? What type of car he drives? Who cares? And can you please specify where you think the article fails to provide sufficient information about the role he has taken in his research achievements. Tony 04:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * None of those articles are featured either. Fieari 05:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak object. Half per Fieari. Tony has a point, we shouldn't load an article with information that isn't pertinent. However, it is important to have some basic facts on a person when writing an article about him. All biographies one reads in professional books have information about the family life (marital status, children, brothers or sisters,) as well as some major hobbies, inspirations, or interesting facts. If Gilbert is the leader in this field, then I think it is understood he took a leading role in all of the reasearch mentioned in his article. However, it would be nice if he were mentioned just a tad more in the article's actual text. Other than that, the article is quite satisfactory. RyanG e rbil10 04:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the new second paragraph satisfies these objections. Tony
 * There's still nothing about the man in the body of the article. Remember, the lead is an introduction... anything in the lead should be described in further detail in the article itself. If there's something in the lead that isn't in the article, the article isn't comprehensive. Fieari 17:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead is an introduction, true, but there's not unanimous support for your second contention among WPs. What I've added in the second para, in response to your objection, is all there is. The man lives for his work, and does little else. I think you're pushing the issue out of proportion, and you haven't responded to my requests to specify (1) personal and (2) research role details you want added. I therefore contend that your objection is not actionable. Tony 01:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I agree with Fieari. Take a look at articles like Carl Friedrich Gauss, Richard Feynman, and Barbara McClintock (all FAs): all have information about topics like Early life and other things directly about the life of the perosn in question. (and both Feynman and McClintock were alive fairly recently). In fact, the article doesn't even present the birth date of Gilbert. Thanks, AndyZ 01:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll withdraw and resubmit under the name "The science of Robert Gilbert". Tony 01:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article can now be found at Robert Gilbert (chemist). &lt;KF&gt; 22:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)