Wikipedia:Peer review/List of scientists whose names are used as SI units/archive1

List of scientists whose names are used as SI units
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, I'm thankful to those scientists who had contributed much to our lives. Since I am not in a position to judge who contributed more, I chose those scientists whose names are used in SI units to represent the whole scientific community.

Thanks, Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: What a great idea for a list - thanks for your work on it. With some work I think this could be WP:FL, so here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * Biggest problem with the current list are the references. They do not include all the information needed, for example internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Many of the references appear to not be from the highest quality sources. At least one (to Citizendium) is not to a reliable source.
 * I also note that the references do not confirm in many cases that the unit is named for the person in question. So for example, I checked the ref for the Kelvin - it is http://www.convertunits.com/info/degrees+kelvin but it seems to be a questionable source at best (where is there any indication of editorial oversight to make it a RS?) and it does not mention the connection to Lord Kelvin.
 * I do not have a copy of the Asimov book but it seems like it would be an excellent general ref for the overall article, with perhaps some individuals (who are not in Asimov's book) requiring their own refs.
 * A good general ref for the units themselves would be the NIST - see here
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so this one is too short. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * I would include the other base units in the note
 * I think the use of just colors for base vs derived units does not seem to meet WP:ACCESS
 * I am not sure the section headers follow WP:HEAD (try to avoid repeating all or part of the name of the article in headers if at all possible)
 * Could the images be included in the table itself? For an example of a recent fully illustrated FL see List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem)
 * 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.)

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; 04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest. I did my best to improve the article.


 * 1) My main sources are the written materials, especially Asimov. I also included web sources for the readers. Upon your warning I changed some of the web sources.But unfortunately usually the web authors are impossible to find.
 * 2) Previosly only the units were sourced. Now I also sourced the scientists.
 * 3) I extended the introduction.
 * 4) I included the other base units in the note. (But the template already contains the other base units as well as the other derived units.)
 * 5) I have used the color just to mark the two base units. Now the two bases units are also marked by a note (Base unit). It is also possible to use two separate tables. But I think the note is enough.
 * 6) The reason for using the image gallery instead of image-in-the-table method was that I couldn't find the photos of Sievert and Gray. I found Sievert's photo in Swedish Wikipedia and used it. But Gray's photo is still missing. But anyway the images are now replaced in the table.
 * Happy editting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. It looks better, but I still have some concerns. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead still does not really follow WP:LEAD. For example WP:BEGINNING says in part "The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject." but the current first sentence does not even mention the scientists.
 * The references still need to provide more information. For example current ref 1 is listed twice, but is not complete in either place. The full title at the top of the web page is "Essentials of the SI: Base & derived units" but it is lised as "Esentials of the SI" once and as "Essential of the SI" once, but in neither is "Essentials" spelled correctly, and the part after the colon is not included in either. Also neither lists the publisher (NIST) which needs to be included.
 * I am also still concerned that some of the reference do not seem to be reliable sources - for example the ref on Ampere is cited to "Wordig" when it is actually "Wordiq" (WORDIQ, not WORDIG). This is a website which has a large notice that it has copied parts of the public domain 1911 Encylopedia Brittanica but a smaller notice that it takes its content from Wikipedia - see http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Andre_Marie_Ampere. Wikipedia is not a RS. I would use Physics textbooks.