Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Einstein

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Bio, History of Science, Philosophy, Physics, and Science. Sandy 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This article was once FA but now when I look at it I doubt it would pass FA again. It is far, far too long, and some of the sections — the bits about his religion, political views, and "scientific philosophy" — look very amateurish and are not encyclopedic (the religion section is currently a bunch of unsynthesized quotes). The article has been in this state for months. It would be great if someone would sit down with it and try and bring it up to standards but so far nobody has bothered. Some sections are very good, and are very carefully sourced; some are not. I'm putting this here both to call attention to the problems with this former featured article as well as to prepare for a possible FARC if it isn't improved substantially. I don't think it is among the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, currently. --Fastfission 18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing I noticed straight away is that there's no infobox, which I thought was a bit strange for a bio. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how it's done. Otherwise it seems fine, even if it is a bit long. Terri G 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are not required for bios; we've discussed it many times on that article's talk page and most people seem to think it looks better without one. Please don't add another one in. I think infoboxes in biographies are bad ideas unless someone is in an easily defined series (i.e. a president or something like that) because it makes the choice of what information to add either obvious (i.e. redundant stating of the birth and death dates, even though they are easy to find in the article lead itself) or arbitrary (children, family, alma mater, etc., which may or may not be useful info). (In any case, if the problems with the article were on the level of not having one template or another, that would not be a good reason for a FAR, IMO. The problems are deeper.) --Fastfission 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments It appears that this article has grown via piecemeal edits, with no oversight, since it's promotion. Besides everything already mentioned, some samples of problems throughout: I didn't look at the prose because this article is in need of a major rewrite, reorganization anyway. Sandy 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A number of the websites used as references need to be examined per WP:RS; for example (there are more),
 * Science and cosmic religion.
 * Einstein and religion.
 * The citations need work&mdash; here are a couple of samples:
 * ^ p. 671
 * ^ [1]
 * There are external jumps, which should be converted to prose that is cited to the external reference (e.g.; Time magazine).
 * There are numerous cite tags, and many more needed.
 * Here's something that needs to be converted to a citation:
 * According to the authoritative biography by Pais (page 36, among others),
 * Quotations should be moved to WikiQuote. Entire sections are not prose, rather battling quotations.
 * Citizenship doesn't look comprehensive.
 * This is pacayune; one of the footnotes complained up has just been fixed; the footnote p. 671 is to the text "In the Schilpp book" (a referent which is unique, well-known, and previously defined.) Septentrionalis 03:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And the rumour never dies: compare with User:Samsara/Debunking an urban myth: Einstein at school. I suggest permanently demoting the article because this problem can inherently not be addressed by any wiki. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the link: Albert Einstein. When did we start treating Britannica as a reliable source?! - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources states: "Publications such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources." Q0 23:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments above, and the article generally seems to be a mess. Sandy, I have one question: when you say that "citizenship doesn't look comprehensive, what do you have in mind ? There are a few details that could be added, but as far as I know, the current version looks fairly comprehensive. Schutz 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments.
 * "He was one of the formulators of the special and general theories of relativity." Um, last time I looked, he was the innovator.
 * "On 30 March 1921, Einstein went to New York to give a lecture on his new Theory of Relativity, the same year he was awarded the Nobel Prize." Odd back-reference from year to date.
 * "less-contested theory"—Shouldn't be hyphenated.
 * The heirarchy of the headings needs attention. Tony 09:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are length and focus (4), section formatting and general organization (2). Marskell 14:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove - Certain statements still need inline cites. LuciferMorgan 13:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove - the article is still undercited, a number of the references used don't appear to be to reliable sources, and some of the references can't be tracked down (an ibid to a non-specific source). There are still prose and organizational problems in the article, which appears to have grown piecemeal, and it doesn't appear that anyone is watching over the article or making an organized attempt to improve it.  Sandy (Talk) 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And lots more. Tony 11:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove as per above. What a pity. And it's still easy to see problems in the prose, such as the following, which I've take from one short passage:
 * "instead focusing intensely only on what interested him"—awkward syntax.
 * "it's"—contractives not appropriate in this register.
 * Overuse of the retro-conditional "would" (e.g., "he would later describe", rather than just "he later described:).
 * "showed great mathematical ability early on." Last two words a bit informal.