Talk:Owen Gingerich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Owen Gingerich was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-03-26

Owen Gingerich was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-01-14

Owen Gingerich has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Education

Can anyone find any additional information on Gingerich's education? Such as, what degrees did he get from which institutions and in what years? I have been unable to find a curriculum vitæ for him. If you can, please add the info to the "Early Life" section. Jacob1207 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have found some of that data. However, it would be nice to have info on his doctoral thesis. Can anyone dig up the title, topic, name of his adviser, etc? Jacob1207 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Nomination

I have read this article and found that it is pretty much well written, broad in its coverage, holds to a neutral point of view, is stable, and contains properly tagged images with rationales. However, before I can promote this article to Good status there are unsupported facts in the text that I think could benefit from citation, so here goes...

1. The sentence at the beginning of the Career and contributions section that entails Gingerich's eccentric teaching style should be cited.
2. The sentence that say he was awarded an Order of Merit by the Polish government should be cited also.
3. This sentence is not only a run-on, but the quote in it should be cited, Gingerich, who is a Christian as well as a historian of science and a cosmologist, has been asked several times to comment on matters concerning science and faith, including Intelligent Design, an issue with "immense incomprehension from both the friends and foes."
4. Also the bit about him hiring an airplane to advertise a class should be cited.

Overall, the article is very informative. I am putting this article on hold. When these concerns are met I will happily promote it to good status. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA, not touched since put on hold.Rlevse 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize that I didn't check this article during the time its GA nomination was under consideration. I have, however, addressed the four points raised. Jacob1207 06:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007 Good Article Review

The article is factually accurate and verifiable, fairly broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and has good images. It's a good subject for a Wikipedia article. I have just one major problem with it as far as Good Article status goes: the structure needs reworking, and in particular the lead section needs to be redone. Here are some more detailed comments, roughly in descending order of importance.

1. The introduction (section zero) is not an adequate summary of the article: it mostly just lists his current posts. It needs rethinking and should be rewritten in the light of Wikipedia:Lead section. The intro should capture the essence of the article (and of Gingerich). Currently, for example, it gives short shrift to the work he is most famous for (history of astronomy) and it doesn't even mention the Science & Religion topic.
2. The "Career and contributions" section is a bit of a mishmash. The first paragraph talks about the IAU controversy of last year, and the same topic is in the second paragraph. The section needs to be more organized, either by topic or chronologically.
3. You might want to use Template:Infobox_Scientist to gather together personal information about Dr. Gingerich; currently it's scattered throughout the article and some is missing.
4. Combine the "Early life" and "Personal life" sections; they're closely related. I'd put the combined section where "Early life" is now.
5. Assume each major section is read somewhat independently; for example, the "Early life" section begins "He …" but should begin "Gingerich …".
6. I was surprised to see no mention of Gingerich's work on models for the solar atmosphere. More generally, a lot of his earlier work is missing.
7. "was raised on the prairies of Kansas". Actually, I expect that North Newton, Kansas had extensive cropland agriculture when Gingerich was growing up there. There wasn't much prairie left. I'd change it to "the flatlands of Kansas", since North Newton is indeed as flat as a pancake.
8. The "Science & Religion" section is nicely written. "Religion" should be in lower-case in the section title, though.
9. The text is inconsistent between "Dr. Gingerich" and "Gingerich". Typical Wikipedia style is the latter, I think.
10. There should be a better bibliography. For example, the text refers to Gingerich's book The Book Nobody Read but there's no citation that I can follow. I suggest using Template:Cite_book and being fairly systematic about tracking down and listing his best-known books, certainly all the books mentioned in the article.
11. I would have liked to see a few more independent references; many of the references are reused.
12. The link to the Bethel College story is broken.
13. You might want to compare this article to a known Good Article of scientist, e.g., Richard Dawkins, to get some more ideas of your own.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

—Eubulides 07:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)