Please see previous failed nomination in the archive.

Renomination of this good, peer-reviewed article. After much work, I think the article currently is as high if not higher quality than most featured articles. In my opinion, the controversy with User:Iantresman in particular has cooled off to the point now where the article is neutral and comprehensive. --ScienceApologist 22:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object While the article is adequate in representing redshift from an astronomical viewpoint, it marginalises (a) the Wolf Effect, the only redshift (in additional to the Doppler redshift), that sources tell us has been demonstrated in the laboratory (b) supresses nearly all "criticism" of the interpretation of redshift, amd discussion of "alternative" redshift mechanisms/interpretations (c) Won't even link to (See also) some other articles on redshift (presumably because they are too "controversial"), eg. Redshift quantization, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies. --Iantresman 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Several problems here - if appropriately dealt with, I will vote support. First, the introductory paragraph is too short and does not talk about things like history, gravitational red shift etc. It thus does not adequately summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for more information. Other problems include the presence of one sentence paragraphs and sentences which don't seem to fit - blue shift in the intro is confusing (especially in context of the preceding sentence), the line about white noise, the information about the Einstein effect, etc. I think that more explanation is needed to understand these concepts and they are otherwise confusing. Whole sections are without references - the observations in astronomy section only has four references total, three coming in the same line! To end, the entire article needs a thorough copyediting after the rest has been fixed. I will avoid getting into the discussion mentioned above because I honestly don't know the subject matter well enough. But, if this page is improved, we will have to delve into that, as well! InvictaHOG 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Introductory section now includes information from overview which, in my opinion, was inappropriately split. I'm hesitant to include too much of the history of redshifts more than what is already stated because this is an article on a phenomena not a historical event. Let me know if you think something should be in the lead.

  I'm going to need more information about what specificallly you find confusing about blueshift, white noise, and the Einstein effect in order to more adequately explain it. Please let me know.

  If you could indicate precisely where you require references, that would be best. Most of the descriptions are summary in nature and don't lend themselves to single references.

--ScienceApologist 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick survey of the article revealed several sentences and sections which should be referenced. The information came from some place (your head?) and if it isn't a reference then it could be mistaken!

• In 1977, the CfA Redshift Survey was begun in an attempt to map the large-scale structure of the universe, with the first release of data completed in 1982. (See Redshift survey section below.)
• The entire section on measurement, characterization, interpretation - this encompasses three paragraphs and a table! It might just be common knowledge to someone in the field, but how would we know?
• The entire redshift summary table
• The expansion of space section has two different referencing styles. Please standardize the references in the entire article
• Under Observations in astronomy - the section starting with "Spectroscopy" is unreferenced as is the entire subheading local observations. For instance, how do we know that Huggins first used this method in 1868? It's certainly not something which everyone knows.
• Under extragalactic observations, there are five paragraphs (beginning with "For galaxies") which do not have a single reference.

The entire section on redshift surveys is unreferenced, as is the section on Effects due to physical optics or radiative transfer.

Overall, I'd say that a good half of the article is unreferenced. As for the other concerns, the article still needs to get rid of single sentence paragraphs, single paragraph sections, and needs to be copyedited. InvictaHOG 15:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing can improve, but it would be better if you inserted the ((fact)) tag in the article where you see problems rather than writing section names in general. That would really be appreciated. The specific instances you cited, I inserted the reference. Remember, this is a scientific article, not a history article, so keep in mind that some of the things which you balk at may be simply because you aren't familiar with the material. That's why we have external sources -- because many of the facts are verifiable by literally hundreds of sources and there are issues of NPOV if we preferentially cite common knowledge facts to single sources. I'm also going to have to dispute that single sentence paragraphs and single paragraph sections are a problem. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Style guide to indicate this is the case and sometimes, especially with technical and scientific writing this is de rigeur. As per the suggestion at the top of the style guide, where two styles are equally acceptable from an editorial standpoint, it isn't right to marginalize one in terms of another. I'm always willing to have a general copyedit, but I'm probably not the best person to do this as I'm not a copyeditor. If you would like to do this be my guest. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a scientific article, rather it is an encyclopedia article talking about a scientific concept. It's an important difference (and one I've had to adopt to while editing here as a scientist). It's not NPOV, IMHO, to cite a single reference for a fact that is "common knowledge." If it is found in any introductory textbook, then by all means just put down the textbook and the page. As for single sentence paragraphs - they are not well-received in the scientific world I am familiar with (physics, biology, medicine). As for the MoS, under the Wikipedia:Guide to layout it asks that we limit them. InvictaHOG 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored to Wikipedia Talk:Featured article candidates/Redshift --ScienceApologist 18:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Please unclutter the TOC. You should only be using more than two hierarchical levels if you have very good reasons for it. As it stands, you have two "header orphans" at the third hierarchical level. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The article seems to accurately represent the views of the scientific community to the best of my ability to determine. While additional citations would make it clearer that this is the case, at least half of the items tagged as needing citations really _are_ common knowledge that would be found in any recent textbook that covers the subject. While I'd be happy to see more citations added, I think that the article in its present form is about as close to optimal as it's going to get. --Christopher Thomas 01:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As per Christopher Thomas' support, I believe that the areas lacking citations are mostly common knowledge in the field, and can be found in any reasonably comprehensive textbook. Citing only one of hundreds of textbooks in these cases would essentially result in an advertisement for that textbook. --Constantine Evans 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they're only common knowledge if you already know the subject. If you don't, then surely you'd expect Wikipedia to be the source of the citations. --Iantresman 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample textbooks are included in the reference section. We shouldn't include specific endorsements as this may, in fact, be a violation of NPOV. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This has nothing to do with endorsements, but providing reliable, verifiable citations. For example, the sentence introducing mechanisms suggests that there are only three, due to transformation of frames of reference. This requires a citation.
• I can provide several reliable, peer reviewed citations suggestion that there is a forth redshift mechanism, the Wolf Effect --Iantresman 17:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We've been over this before. It is not right to hold the article accountable to your demonstrated ignorance. Citations rightly occur when there is an easily discernable discoverer who deserves credit or where the prose interpretation can be traced to an individual. Otherwise, including citations constitutes a textbook preference that Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of promoting. This is actually a legal issue. There are plenty of textbook publishers who would prefer their text be cited over others. It's best, therefore, to let sleeping dogs lie. --ScienceApologist 20:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are three redshift mechanisms, which are due to frame transformations, then this MUST be verifiable... somewhere. If it is common knowledge, then there must be dozens of sources, and citing one of these sources both verifies the statement, AND, allows the reader to find out more information. It has nothing to do with promoting any specific text.
• I can provide reliable verifiable citations to all my statements. Surely so can you? --Iantresman 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate: chosing a single source absolutely promotes a specific text unfairly. --ScienceApologist 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've misunderstood. I didn't realise we were talking about a single source. As far as I am concerning, multiple citations implies multiple reference sources. This should not be a problem of some of the statements are common knowledge. --Iantresman 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]