GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 19:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. A few things here and there, but overall in rather good shape.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. No issues noted.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Looks fine.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Some sources are tagged for replacement.
2c. it contains no original research. A couple of synth and CN tags remain
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig's tool just finds common quotations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Mostly, but note the absence of in-text discussion of some of the awards which are attributed (by category) to Tesla
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Without even doing a complete readthrough, there's clearly room for more breakouts here. The tool cites 51k of readable prose, which is borderline WP:TOOBIG. I will be looking for material to break out as I review the article.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No issues noted. I like the balanced approach to Tesla's unsubstantiated claims.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit war noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. No issues found
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. We could even lose a few; there are almost too many images.
7. Overall assessment. Promoting per four solid weeks of rewrites and improvements. Article STILL isn't perfect... but perfection is not necessary for GA class.

First read through

Early Years
Middle years
Wardenclyffe
Later Years
Personal life
Relationships
On society
Enterprises and organizations
Holidays and events
Plaques and Memorials
References
Etc.

Whew. That's a long article, and while the prose is quite good, overall, there still are more than a few things that need fixing. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In my opinion this GA review is premature owing to the great deal of work that the article needs.

In context gives us:

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that input. You've identified one weak spot of the GA system--that an editor reviewing an article isn't necessarily in a position to evaluate the content sufficiency of the article. At the same time, "good" article status is intentionally lower than featured article quality. While there may be a lot of further work needed to get the article into featured shape, is it truly so far off from GA status that you do not believe it can be brought into alignment with the requirements in a timely manner? Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although it doesn't really mean anything now, this article was a GA at one point. Laurdecl talk 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think if Wireless power was consolidated and explained to the average reader (readers have posted on the talk page that the use of the word "Wireless" makes no sense to them and they can not understand how is it different from "radio"), if statements about Tesla could be rooted back to a particular source re:WP:YESPOV #1 (gets tricky because that source is invariably Tesla himself), if Tesla's life after 1900 read a little bit less sanitized, and if the 29 paragraphs of personal description were trimmed back, then, yes, it would be a GA. Its a trim, organize, and synchronizing summary with sub-articles that may not be too difficult and could be done in a timely manner. I think the GA is a good idea and should go forward, I was mainly pointing out something that would probably come up in the review, that the noted need for 3b summary style "breakouts" would reveal that this article and its sub-articles were not in sync. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Super. Can you help prioritize problems? If you'd like to function as a co-reviewer, I'd welcome the help and be happy to share the credit, such as it is. Tesla is listed as a vital article, and as such, when I'm doing a GA review, I want to take as much time as is needed to get it RIGHT. For a level 3 vital article, that's often about a month. GA on some obscure topic without controversy can be "bling" for the editor working on it, but its real purpose is ideally to develop the editing skills needed to tackle the bigger, more controversy-strewn topics like this one. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to throw in edits. Did not think of being a reviewer since I am not independent, have a long edit history on this article. If its ok I'll just edit from the sidelines and not be a reviewer, if editing during the review wont throw you all off... don't want to make things harder. Most of what I see is just squaring up whats there already by putting things in order, synchronizing with sub articles, and throwing in WP:OBVIOUS such as where Tesla was, the fact that he was designing communication before radio, ionosphere and all that fun stuff, and other basic description. I think a first step would be creating rational section headings and just move material around to match them.... no deletion and a little WP:OBVIOUS addition to lead each section. I could try to put those up in a few days. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fountains of Bryn Mawr, to the extent that editing during a GA doesn't rise to the level of an edit war, it's not only permitted but welcome. I don't see that happening, and if the two of you want to continue focused, ongoing editing until all three of us are agreed that GA criteria are met, and met well enough for the importance of Tesla's stature (i.e., the fact we list this article as vital, I think that is entirely within the spirit of Wikipedia. Laurdecl, what do you think? Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. Did some edits to rearrange many years of well referenced but piecemeal edits into a coherent narrative. Finding a few omissions along the way (like, wow... we missed the Tesla coil). If this comes off as a little too much "swinging the meat axe" (good or bad connotations noted) let me know. WP:BOLD early?, giving time for editors look over everything and make further changes, or a slower approach?. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I think Fountains of Bryn Mawr has done a wonderful job cleaning this article up (although I think they broke a few refs), it looks much better now compared to when I nominated it. Laurdecl talk 03:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the ref breaking. Just added info on Tesla's time at Edison... which again... sorry... made the article a bit longer. I think key moments in Tesla's life like that need extra detail, partly because of WP:YESPOV, and partly because its a big part of the pop-culture views of him... needs explaining. Paring down other sections by WP:SUMMARY should counter-balance this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and I'm probably not going to get a chance to review this in any depth until Saturday afternoon U.S. time, so please continue breaking and fixing stuff in the mean time. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


In the beginning of the lead there are four (!) inline citations after "he was Serbian-American". I understand this is controversial but it seems more the result of content disputes/an attempt to further opinions than good style. Do we really need this? Laurdecl talk 05:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my thought, too. I'd rather let that over-citation stay than give anyone an excuse to resume an ownership war over Tesla's ethnicity. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basic structure edits done (one my part... others may see more work to do). Avoided (or in some cases, rolled back) claims about Tesla or his inventions... edits followed more along the lines of "just the facts, mam". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 28th

Reviewing as promised. Wifi here is kinda sketchy, but I will at least be able to REVIEW the article today. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, by you. Laurdecl talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, by you Laurdecl talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Laurdecl talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Fountains of Bryn Mawr, who rearranged the sections. Maybe they were going for an timeline of his inventions, rather than a timeline of his life? Laurdecl talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... 89 Liberty Street was a "New York laboratory". There is actually no overlap, many sources note Tesla produced his motor patents, licensed them, did a little consulting in Pittsburgh, and was out of there in 1889 - on to pursue his further projects. But moving up the section heading "New York laboratories" may be a good idea. The "War of Currents", ""Tesla Polyphase System" and "Niagara and patents" are technically not a part of a Tesla timeline - they were things done by other people. It can be argued Tesla had no involvement in "War of Currents", but its a big part of his popular myth.... which gets into a "Tesla problem".... how do we cover myth? Should we cover a myth at all? - you can not place a myth in a timeline per WP:YESPOV. The other two items can be broken out and moved to their point in the "timeline". Asynchronous and overlapping material seems to be the nature of the beast since wireless lighting, wireless power, the Tesla Turbine, etc were long term projects so they don't fit a timeline format (at least I could find no way to merge them in). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking and working on a rearrangement along the lines of Laurdecl. I think the timeline can be put in sequence via subs called "Polyphase System and the Columbian Exposition", "Consulting on Niagara", "Patent buyout". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk)
 Done. Laurdecl talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed it, I don't see the point of this sentence and there's no direct citation for it. Laurdecl talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Took a pass at cleanup, removed last sentence since the references were weak. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it means "Old Age Pensioner".... Laurdecl talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, changed to curl. Laurdecl talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed the refs, I have no idea what they refer to. Laurdecl talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel comfortable simply removing the awards, seeing as most of them have actually been given to him, according to sources. Perhaps I should add references to the infobox? Laurdecl talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't propose they be removed either! I think a paragraph or two detailing the awards and honors he DID get could go somewhere, possibly next to the discussion of the Nobel rumors? Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I added them in under the Nobel prize section. Laurdecl talk 08:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a full run through. Structure and organization looks substantially improved. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is now waiting on me, isn't it? Will try and get back to it tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep :), no problem. Laurdecl talk 06:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party comments

Sorry for jumping in at the last minute, but I couldn't help but notice that the article has plenty of references attributed to Tesla Universe and works published by MyReportLinks.com Books. These aren't RS by any stretch of the imagination and should be culled, and if necessary, replaced, before the reviewer considers promotion. Also there is considerable inconsistency in the ref format—sfn vs. <ref> </ref/> (see Carlson, etc.) This ought to be consistent throughout. 23 editor (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what can be done about TU. One reference to it is used more than twenty (!) times. I just don't have the time to find more sources for each of the statements. In most cases a TU reference has another, more reliable, source next to it. Converting reference format should be trivial. Laurdecl talk 06:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe reference formatting is any part of the GA criteria. It absolutely is at FA... but that's a different, stricter process. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the task may seem daunting at first, but it really shouldn't be too difficult. I've skimmed over the assertions it is used to source and virtually all can be found in Carlson, Seifer and Cheney's books, which are available on Google Books. Just enter the relevant keyword and the right page number should pop up. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes. If there is a more reliable source used to cite the same statement, just cull the TU ref. 23 editor (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm interested to why the article doesn't mention any dispute about Tesla's ethnicity/nationality? There are plenty of sources and evidences. I think this deserves to be mentioned. For instance, look at the sources in this discussion [1]. Not to mention that whole thread. 89.164.158.107 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Tesla was a Serb. Laurdecl talk 06:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what makes you so sure, but you can't neglect other sources. There's obviously a dispute. I pointed to sources and I think the article should mention that dispute. May I ask you, which source made you convinced that Tesla is a Serb? As far as I know, not a single source which makes the claim is founded in any primary source. Yes there are many sources that claim he was a Serb, but that's as much worth as my word that he was a Hungarian, without any argument or primary source to base the claim. 89.164.132.23 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Asdisis. There isn't a dispute. There has never been a dispute. You've tried to force your fringe POV on this article since 2012. You failed. Not a single Tesla biographer supports your views. Get over yourself. Stop wasting your time. 23 editor (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a link to 28 sources saying otherwise. None of the sources has any foundation in any claim. No primary sources exist that would back up any group of sources. If you are going to ignore this sources and arguments, that's your problem as an objective editor. There's obviously a dispute as no one has any primary source. Here's something from Director of Tesla Museum in Belgrade: "Vladimir Jelenković ..., had confirmed that the theories on Tesla's Romanian ethnicity are very often." [2]. 89.164.187.82 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to TU

I would recommend against summarily deleting ALL TeslaUniverse citations (I would just take out most of them;)). All sources have their failings but they are reliable in some form. TU does carry republished material, giving us a readable version on-line of a primary or secondary source that is not just "TU speaking". I restored this TU citation because it is a summary of a primary source and seems reliable. That same primary source is cited by a very reliable secondary source (Carlson) and it is nice to have the backup TU article to flesh it out. I would note there are worse sources (IMHO) than TU being used in the Tesla article such as teslasociety.com, teslasociety.org, and tfcbooks.com. Those are all fan sites and the factual errors they present can be doozies. tfcbooks.com is the best (or worse) of both worlds... the editor has a POV (and pushes them on Wikipedia) but the site also reprints primary sourced material, which can be useful (although it can also be replaced). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys ping me once you've hashed everything out to your mutual satisfaction? I like the progress so far... Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would use it as an absolute last resort. If a claim you wish to cite is located in a Tesla bio or some other reliable source (news article, etc.), then double- or triple-citing (and thereby including TU) is completely unjustified. Sometimes just one source is enough, especially if we are dealing with an uncontroversial claim. As far as I can tell, there is very little attributed to the TU timeline that can't be sourced using Carlson, Cheney or Seifer. On another note, the article has a widespread problem with WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources, published by Lulu and Authorhouse, among others. This issue hasn't been addressed at all, and it must be in order for the GA criteria pertaining to verifiability to be satisfied. I'll see what I can do over the next couples of days, but I'd like for other contributors to give me a hand in sifting the good sources from the junk ones. 23 editor (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree (again) that we should use TU very little but it does have its uses. The "Tesla Timeline" is the worse because it has no citations. I cited TU above where it is a primary source confirmation and expansion on Carlson (because Carlson didn't give us dates). It gets trickier when claiming one source is better than another. The self published books, Cheney, Seifer, O'Neill (and a few others) are equally problematic in a GA because none of those people are historians and/or experts in engineering (most are journalists). They fall in the same boat as TU, good for an uncontroversial claim where they give you a citation you can follow but more problematic beyond that since their primary goal is write an entertaining tale. Carlson is probably the best source --> University of Virginia professor of professor of history, science, technology, and society... although he does seem to make the occasional mistake[3]. I just found out Thomas P. Hughes does as well[4]. Jonnes would be another good academic source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No source is perfect, obviously. I see nothing wrong with using journalists as sources, otherwise we might as well jettison the NYT, BBC, etc. The published sources you've mentioned all have extensive endnotes, which news articles typically don't. When it comes to referencing details from Tesla's life as opposed to his inventions, I fail to see why the authors would have to be engineers. In any case, both are infinitely more reliable than fanboy sites and self-published works. If no one is up for combing through the TU citations and replacing them with rs, I guess I'll have to do it myself. Give me a day or two. 23 editor (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still agree with the TU cull. I have been doing minor my self as I work my way through section by section (slowly). Straight biographical work can be ref'ed to works by non-historians. We can check them and almost skip them because we can read their sources ---> Tesla (his bio and articles), Tesla as told to/or copied by O'Neill, primary source newspaper articles about Tesla, and patents. BBC, NYT, Smithsonian, and a whole slew of journalists turned "Tesla biographers", they can all be pretty awful when it comes to general historical context and technical stuff, its not their job know that stuff. But it probably doesn't matter because we do have Carlson, Jonnes, Hughes, Skrabec, Maury Klein, etc to rely on. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 11th re-review

I'm pretty sure he promised Tesla. Laurdecl talk 05:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it... Laurdecl talk 05:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, imagine if he only slept two hours in his entire life. Laurdecl talk 05:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I was thinking vs. "at a time". Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going crosseyed. I want to commend everyone on their collaboration. Each time I go through this article it reads better. The only reason I keep finding things to nitpick on is the heroic level of ongoing editor investment in this article. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, all of it. Laurdecl talk 05:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And in light of all that you all have done for the article so far, I am compelled to recognize that it has met GA criteria. GA does not demand perfection, and there are still a lot of idisyncracies, sourcing that could be improved or made more consistent, and the like. You're a far piece from FA, but you've come so far in the past month that holding back GA at this point would simply be petty. Please, continue to collaboratively improve the work as you have been doing so far! Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More