Wikipedia:Peer review/Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact/archive1

Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact
This peer review discussion has been closed. This article has gone through a good article nomination, which dredged up a large amount of problems in the article which were not detected previously. These problems have since been resolved, but I would like guidance here on how to improve the article here and make it more representative of all of the expert speculation on the subject. As I have exhausted nearly every free source, this involves, in large part, an ability to access the non-free references which have been cited and those which cannot be cited because no information can be gained from them. Admittedly, though, I have not exhausted all non-free sources, and the vast majority of the information here has not yet been used as I do not really know how to include all of the content of the article beyond what has already been included. Perhaps some peer reviewers can aid me in that.

Furthermore, I feel that the prose is rather uninteresting and repetitive, and I would like a way to make it more lucid and captivating for the reader. While after my extensive copyedit the article probably meets the prose requirements for being a good article, but my ultimate goal with this peer review is to make a possible future featured article candidate.

Thanks, Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 20:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting subject for an article, but I agree it needs a fair amount of work before it owuld be ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * Peer review is more for pointing out problems with articles for others to address / fix, than for finding people to fix the problems. It seems as if you have a decent idea of some of the issues with the article, but I am not really sure what this means As I have exhausted nearly every free source, this involves, in large part, an ability to access the non-free references which have been cited and those which cannot be cited because no information can be gained from them. If a source exists but is "non-free" can you get it from a library or via inter-library loan?
 * None of these sources would be readily accessible in a public library, one would have to go to a university library in order to access even a fraction of these sources.


 * I think the article title might be better as just "Impact of extraterrestrial contact", as the first sentence says, the topic is not limited to cultural impacts: ''The cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact covers the potential future implications that contact with extraterrestrial civilizations could have on culture, science, technology, politics, religion, law, and other aspects of society.
 * Changed to "Implications of extraterrestrial contact."
 * I've reverted this change. The reviewer did not make this suggestion, and his suggestion based on the reading of the first, unsourced sentenence is generally at odds with the sources and the topic.  Culture includes science technology, politics, religion, law, and other social aspects.  In our case, we are referring to Western culture.  In terms of ET, we are talking about ET culture.  The sources make this very clear.  That the editor did not make this clear in the lead section using the best sources is not a good reason to change the title. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - I am not sure what a good model would be, but there are several conceptul FAs at Featured_articles - perhaps Extrasolar planet or Formation and evolution of the Solar System or Planetary habitability might be useful models
 * One dead link and some links that need access dates
 * Fixed. I will add WebCite redundancy to every link when I get the time.


 * The lead seems a bit sparse to me and should be expanded to be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see anything on artifacts or ecology in the current lead. See WP:LEAD
 * Per WP:See also, links are generally repeated in See also if they are already linked in the article. Search for extraterrestrial intelligence is linked at the top of the article and in the section with that title.
 * My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. One of the biggest problems I see with the article is that there are a fair number of passages without references - for example:
 * ''In addition to all of these factors, whether or not the authenticity of a supposed extraterrestrial signal has been confirmed, and to what level of confidence this confirmation is, will play a role in the ultimate impact of extraterrestrial contact.
 * ''The studies also show smaller, but still large, weighted correlations between participants believing that extraterrestrial contact may either conflict with or enrich their personal religious beliefs, and how conservative such religious beliefs may be, with more conservative individuals holding extraterrestrial contact to be more harmful. Other significant correlation patterns indicate that participants took the view that the search for extraterrestrial intelligence may be futile or even harmful.
 * ''Some theories predict that an extraterrestrial civilization may be advanced enough to no longer use biology, instead living inside advanced computers.
 * ''In order to do so, various methods may be used, including intervention only to avert catastrophe, intervention by advice and consent of world leaders, and forcible corrective action.
 * These statements are all supported by inline citations, but I have added additional citations to these particular sentences.


 * I agree that this needs a copyedit - might be best to make sure the coverage is complete and then ask for help at WP:GOCE or one of the copy editors listed at WP:PR/V.
 * As one example, of a sentence that is difficult to understand see
 * ''Civilizations aiming to ensure the success of other populations of verifying the presence of extraterrestrial species may also use probes, due to their ability to store information on long timescales in a way that radio waves cannot, their ability to create a strong signal within a star system which can be unambiguously identified as being intelligent in origin, rather than being dismissed as a UFO or natural phenomenon, and an ability to modify any signal sent based on environmental factors in a reasonably short period of time.[38]


 * Most source information for references should be in the footnotes / citations, not in the article itself - so A paper written by James W. Deardorff published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1986 speculates that a small fraction of the intelligent life-forms in the galaxy may be aggressive, but the actual aggressiveness or benevolence of the civilizations actually covers a wide spectrum, with some civilizations "policing" others.[21] should just be something like ''In 1986 James W. Deardorff speculated that...
 * Done.


 * Would a see also on fiction on this topic be useful?
 * I'm not sure about a fiction section, as this is an article which focuses on the science of the subject. I really don't know how to make anything beyond a brief hatnote blurb (already there) fit in with the article as a whole.
 * My first reaction to the article title, though, brought to mind two big things that fit under its broad description. The first is what the article discusses - the cultural implications if aliens actually made contact with humans. The second is different, but possibly more relevant: the cultural implications of the *idea* of alien contact - or, so to speak, the existing cultural implications of human-alien contact, which is to say depictions of and relating to this kind of contact. I think each kind informs the other, and see both being relevant to the subject.


 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
 * Done.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RJH comments – It looks like a lot of work has gone into this article and it appears to be in-depth coverage. Unfortunately, the writing seems rather wordy with many redundant elements, and it could do with some tightening of the prose. I'd suggest looking at some of the advice available near the bottom of WP:WIAFA.
 * Something that seems to be missing from the article is coverage about bridging the comprehension gap between the aliens and humans. Much of the text just assumes this will happen, and it goes further to assume they will behave very much like us. But their motivations may be strikingly different and the only thing we could have in common is mathematics. A possible analogy here is in how much difficulty we have had trying to determine how animals think and feel.
 * Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson have made some interesting observations regarding the perils of alien contact, but I don't see that mentioned. I particularly like Dr. Tyson's insightful observation that, "If aliens are just like us, then they should be feared."
 * Lead
 * I'm not clear that the hatnote is necessary, per WP:RELATED. In any case it is inordinately large for the actual value it provides. The hatnote is part of the interface, rather than the article, so keeping it brief is beneficial.
 * The lead doesn't really serve as a concise summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. For example, there is no summary of SETI. It could also use some type of image; perhaps a photo of the Allen Array?
 * How does "The ultimate results of such contact..." differ from "The results of such contact..."? Does it mean long term? If so, how long?
 * "The medium of communication ... could also change the results..."; if we only make contact through one medium, how can we say it changes the results? Perhaps "...could determine the results..."?
 * "Based on these factors, there are various contact scenarios which each cover different types of civilizations and contact, and the specific implications of contact with each type"; to me this sentence is pretty nebulous and it uses the word "contact" three times. Can it be better written?
 * "These implications come in various areas of the human experience, such as religion, politics, the law, science and technology, and the ecology of the Earth"; is this sentence necessary? It's vague, so it doesn't appear to add much value. Perhaps something more concrete can be used?
 * "Results of such contact ... possible results of extraterrestrial contact"; redundancy.
 * "However, as the nature ... Nevertheless, various systems..."; what is the 'nevertheless' in regards to? Perhaps it means "Because of this, various systems..."?
 * Background
 * "...natural astrophysical phenomena which...": how is this different from "...natural phenomenon that..."?
 * "In 2009, A Message From Earth was sent to the Gliese 581 system,...": I think this should say "sent toward", since it will take 20 years for the message to get there.
 * "Subsequently, the SETILive effort, which began in 2012...": The "Subsequently" here is redundant, since a year is given.
 * "...Kepler target stars with the radio telescope": should be plural "telescopes".
 * "While there have been several false positive signals... no evidence has been found that these signals are indeed of intelligent origin": redundancy
 * "consequentiality": please just use normal English words like "consequences" rather than practicing polysyllabicism.
 * "The ultimate impact of extraterrestrial impact can be said to depend on...": again, what does "ultimate" mean here? I'm not clear that this use of the word "ultimate" is needed in the article. Does "can be said to depend on" mean the same as "can depend on"? If not, it may be WP:WEASEL.
 * "...among other factors. In addition to all of these factors...": Redundancy.
 * "Subsequent modifications to the scale": some dates would be good here.
 * "...and the nature of the information received if there is any": the "...if there is any" seems unnecessary, since any non-noise message will carry some type of information.
 * Contact scenarios
 * "...which are willing and able to draw upon vast reserves of force to subjugate humanity...": couldn't this just say the "...draw upon the forces necessary..."? Depending on their technology, they may or may not need "vast reserves of force".
 * "Collaboration with such a civilization could initially be in the arts and humanities before moving to the hard sciences, and conversely, artists may spearhead collaboration": wouldn't the converse case be scientists spearheading the collaboration?
 * "...which would cause harm to civilization": theirs or ours?
 * "An advanced extraterrestrial civilization may not be coming to Earth in order to expand an already-burgeoning empire, as with their level of advancement they may have achieved an equilibrium, as proposed by Ćirković (2008)": doesn't quite make sense.
 * "Extraterrestrial artifacts": there is not much information in this section about the cultural impact; it's mainly about the motivation for using these devices. Hence, I'm not clear why this section needs to be so large.
 * Further implications of contact
 * "...due to the geocentric nature of such religions": which? The Western or the Eastern?
 * "...the teachings of Giordano Bruno...": wait, a guy who was burned at the stake for challenging established dogma somehow indicates that existing religions will successfully adapt? I'm not sure I understand how that conclusion was arrived at.
 * Even if he was burned at the stake, religion has survived Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Heisenberg, and too many other scientists to count. He was burned at the stake but religious authorities will adapt eventually, as they have before.
 * True, but my concern was with how the article is (or is not) communicating this fact. Picture a reader who is none too familiar with scientific history; how would they process the information? Anyway, the issue seems to have been corrected. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "...as scientists begin to attempt to decipher...": "begin to" is wordy and unnecessary.
 * "Harrison (2000) [missing] the communications may": a connecting statement is missing here. Further, it perhaps seems arrogant to assume that contact with us could result in the establishment of a "galactic club". Most likely such would already exist, if other civilizations have been contacted before. If not, then it's a "club" of two.
 * Regarding the "Legal" section, you might also point out that this cuts both ways. What legal rights would humans hold in an alien legal system? Would we be restricted to the Solar System until we surmount some threshold? What happens if the aliens send automated representatives; what legal status would they have?


 * References
 * There's some inconsistency in the reference formatting:
 * "Daniel Terdiman" rather than "Terdiman, Daniel"
 * "Ian O'Neill" rather than "O'Neill, Ian"
 * The "When SETI Succeeds: The Impact of High-Information Contact" and "Xenology" are used widely as references. However, these are lengthy publications. I'd like to see specific page numbers be provided, such as via WP:SFN. For example, where does one find the (to me) astonishingly optimistic statement that begins, "... extraterrestrial civilization may also put an end to the religious conflicts ..."?
 * Some of the citations only have a minimum amount of information. Example: "Kepler: A Search for Habitable Planets"; "Counting on Beauty...". Is there anything more that can be added?

Okay I'm done. Good luck with your article! Regards, RJH (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)