Talk:Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology

question

Ok so what happened after 2003? Nergaal (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any correspondence between them after 2003, and Smalley died in 2005. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 12:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a GA review of this article. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion

A far reaching claim is present in two places:

• "K. Eric Drexler, founder of the field of molecular nanotechnology" (Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
• "K. Eric Drexler was the first person to develop the concepts of nanotechnology" (Resolved North8000 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

Such would need particularly strong sourcing, and it has no sourcing at all. Also the articles on him and the field do not make this claim. Suggest dialing it back or getting strong sourcing for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire paragraph (on which the sentence in the lead is based) is sourced to Edwards. I can try to get additional sources, but this is unlikely to happen until next week since my Ph.D. thesis is due this Friday. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No hurry, but such a far reaching and likely to be contested claim/statement is going to need very strong sourcing to be put in the voice of Wikipedia. Even if one article claimed it, I don't think that such would be enough. And in a quick skim of the cited source, I don't see even it making that claim. An alternative is to just dial it/them back a bit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. :-) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alright, thanks for your patience. I've consulted a few extra sources and reworded both of these sentences: "K. Eric Drexler, the originator of the conceptual basis of molecular nanotechnology," and "K. Eric Drexler is generally considered to have written the first scholarly paper on the topic of nanotechnology, and was a key figure in popularizing these concepts through several publications and advocacy work." Is that better? I look forward to the rest of your review. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah....I just happened to be watching and think we both edited at the same time. Cool! Resolved. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What an interesting and well-written article! And this is in an area which is complex on several levels (the Science, the debates etc.). I'm pretty much done reviewing and have a question on one remaining item. The article describes Smalley making what I think is is an implausible claim: "Smalley recounted his recent exprerience during an outreach visit to middle and high school students, saying that nearly half of them thought that self-replicating nanorobots were possible and that most were worried about the results of them spreading across the world. " I would think it amazing if even 5% of students were even aware of the (putative) possibility of self-replicating nanorobots, much less being concerned about them taking over the world. Were there any missing nuances / qualifiers in the actual statement? (such as those being nanotechnology students?). If it stands as-is (e.g. Smalley making such an implausible claim) the I think it would need a source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The source is [1], second paragraph from the bottom. Smalley was actually talking about the winning essays written after the outreach event rather than the students at the event itself, something that I had missed. Thanks for catching that! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Resolved. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Meets this criteria. Has 9 images. The 2 non-free images have article-specific use rationales. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Result

Thia has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work. An interesting and informative article on a complex topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article

(This is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

What a well written, interesting and informative article! An double so for an area that is complex to cover at several levels (science, the debate itself etc.) This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Richard Smalley.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)