Wikipedia:Peer review/Nikola Tesla/archive1

Nikola Tesla
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's a top importance article, and I would like to list it here first before putting listing it as a good article nominee.

Thanks, Albacore (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Since your goal at this point is GA, I reviewed the article primarily with the GA criteria in mind. The article is generally well-written and quite a few editors have contributed to it. But there are a number of issues and there is some more work required before it is up to the GA standard. Here are some comments I hope will be helpful:

✅, dead links removed.
 * More than a few of the issues raised at Talk:Nikola Tesla/GA1 when the article was delisted remain unaddressed. All of the issues raised there should be fixed. For example:
 * There are still a couple of dead links.
 * Author names in the references are still inconsistent.
 * ISBNs have not yet been provided.
 * There are several direct quotations that are not referenced.


 * Images should be relevant to the section in which they appear. Many of the images seem out of place where they appear in the article. There should not by any images in the Further reading section.

✅ Removed image from Further reading section, re-arranged some images to different sections.
 * Images should also not force the sandwiching of the text or other strange formatting. Many of them do. Some of them will probably have to be deleted to allow the article to format correctly.

✅, changed to PD-US-patent only. ✅ changed to Non-free 3D image with a fair use rationale. ✅, tagged both for deletion.
 * There are quite a few copyright problems with the images. Most of them are probably public domain, but the claims and/or sourcing are not clear. Unless corrected, the problematic images should be deleted. The issues I found are:
 * File:Tesla young.jpg claims PD-Old, which is life of the author plus 70 years, but does not say who the author is
 * File:RMFpatent.PNG claims PD-US-patent and GFDL. If it is an original patent drawing, only PD-US-patent belongs.
 * File:TeslaWirelessPower1891 adjusted.png claims PD-US, which means it was published before 1923. But there is no source or publication data.
 * File:US390721.png claims PD-US-patent and PD-old-50. Which is it?
 * File:Tesla colorado adjusted.jpg and File:WirelessBulb-Tesla.png claim PD-US but there is no date of publication.
 * File:TeslaWirelessLightsCS.png, File:Teslathinker.jpg, File:Milutin Tesla.jpg claims PD-old with no author.
 * File:Twain in Tesla's Lab.jpg has no author (but should be PD under PD-US)
 * File:Teslabust adjusted.jpg claims Non-free 2D art, which applies on to 2D images, not sculptures
 * File:Tesla statue at niagara falls.jpg and File:Aug09 TeslaPlaque.jpg are problematic because photos of 3D art are derivative works. Unless the sculputures are PD, the photos are copyright violations.
 * File:Spomen ploca Nikola Tesla 0108.JPG is probably OK, since Croatia grants freedom of panorama to public plaques. But it should use the PD-Art tag.

✅, delinked some common terms ✅, linked
 * There is still some overlinking. Common terms like horse-riding, investors, and the like should not be linked.
 * Underlinking: Lord Kelvin, liquefaction, X-rays, Roentgen rays, and similar terms should be linked.
 * The list of devices and principles belongs in a list article, not in the article body. It should be moved and linked to in the See also section.
 * Many sections are still undersourced. There are whole paragraphs without a single citation. One citation per paragraphs is a good rule of thumb. Extraordinary claims like his language fluency, mysophobia, and the death of the pigeon (for examples) must be sourced. All of the claims in the Legacy and honors sections should be sourced.
 * The external links are excessive. See WP:EL for guidance.

✅, now links to PDF. ✅, now contains the information cited. ✅, unreliable references removed.
 * There are multiple source issues. I did not check exhaustively, but a spot check reveals these issues:
 * 13 does not link to the PDF
 * 16 does not contain the information cited
 * 21 does not link to the source information. Regardless, page numbers need to be provided for the many claims sources to this book.
 * Teslasociety.com, www.tesla.hu, keyrr.net and www.cyberspaceorbit.net are not reliable sources
 * 93 does not link to the source.

I hope these comments are helpful and appreciate all the work that has gone into the article thus far. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I'm an expert in the field, but I feel I have a reasonable enough armchair understanding of the topic. This sentence in the lead seems highly suspect and I can't see any support for these claims in the body:
 * "In addition to his work on electromagnetism and electromechanical engineering, Tesla contributed in varying degrees to the establishment of robotics, remote control, radar, and computer science, and to the expansion of ballistics, nuclear physics, and theoretical physics."

Tesla was a gifted inventor and extremely hard worker, but I have to question his ability to contribute to nuclear physics for one. The body of the article doesn't go into this at all, nor does it mention ballistics, computer science, robotics (mentioned, but apparently incorrectly) or theoretical physics. Several of these claims seem to be found on this website, although that might just be copying something else (even this article). And having written the majority of the History of radar article, the claim to priority here is essentially groundless and only leave it in to avoid edit wars. Without real support, these claims need to be removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it back, the radar article has been so expanded my contribution is now a tiny minority of the body. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)