Wikipedia:Peer review/Albert Einstein/archive1

Albert Einstein

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently brought to FAC with an unsuccessful result - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Einstein/archive1. I hope this can be conducted in stages. first, some experts can weigh in with comprehensiveness issues, and weighting, and help with sourcing. Then we can work on prose and copyediting. Please help if you can, as it would be great to get this fairly vital bi back up to FA status. I am listing it as I am no expert on Einstein. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness, weighting, sourcing

As the nominator requested! Physchim62 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Running through the article in a "box-checking" mode, I don't find any major omissions. More could be said on Einstein's relation with Mileva Marić, as most accounts paint him as something of a misogynist, which is probably not quite accurate. I prefer the quote from Einstein himself later in the article: that he had "neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings."

However, the weighting of the various sections is appalling. Straight away, I must take issue with the FA reviewer who commented on Einstein's religiousness. Einstein was no more religious than any other middle-class Central European of his time, and probably rather less religious than most South German Jews of that period. His religious beliefs and habits deserves no more than a single paragraph, yet they are currently discussed at greater length that his annus mirabilis papers, with the section placed above the discussion of his politics!

As for the annus mirabilis papers (be they four or five, that depends how you count his PhD thesis), they should each have their own subsection to discuss their impact (all of them had incredible impact): to place them in a bulleted list is almost an insult ;) We could also mention that he found time to write 21 book reviews for Annalen der Physik in the same year.

I'll leave it there for the moement, as there are editors who are more qulified to comment on things like GR than myself. Physchim62 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a suggestion but the sheer volume of references should be pruned down. There are over 100 and many of them are just websites with limited info, I think we could get this down around 40 or 50 solid references realistically.--Kumioko (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really an expert, but I second the view that the article seems to spend too much time on the Einstein's religious views. Moreover, there are virtually no reliable secondary sources presented. Instead, the section consists mostly of Einstein quotes. I think the way to proceed is to move this section out to another article Religious views of Albert Einstein, presenting it here more concisely in summary style with appropriate secondary sourcing. Also, I second Kumioko's suggestion, although with a slightly different emphasis. Many of the sources in the article are of dubious quality or origin. At a minimum, I suggest that the sources should be clearly identified in the References, not just by a website address, but including publisher and author information if possible. This should also help to weed out the sources that are clearly unacceptable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The subarticle on Einstein's religion would probably be useful; that would leave room, both in the main article and in the subarticle, for the influence of Einstein's views on his politics, and on his physics. Schilpp should have much; where is "subtle but not malicious"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Good points all - (a) strongly agree that the notability of his religion is its impact on his sicentific views (b) weed out nonreliable refs, fix and embellish current ones, and find better ones (does anyone have a biography as that would help immensely here) (c) need a physicist or someone famuilair with phyisics to really do justice to his theories methinks. (d) thanks Psychim for setting up these sections, I realised after I went to bed I had meant to do this to map it out properly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I can only reiterate more strongly the view I outlined above, that Einstein's religious views are all but irrelevant. His religious statements could have been made by virtually any European scientist of his era, Jewish or Christian (atheism wasn't really fashionable at the time!). This only possibly connection is his well known espousal of determinism: "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." He was culturally and ethnically Jewish, yes, and that is important for parts of his life story, but he wasn't particularly "spiritual".
      • I've got a short biography of Einstein (and, interestingly, also a short biography of his mother Pauline) which might help to improve the referencing a bit. I can tackle some of the physics, or at least clean it up, but some of it would be beyond me: Relativity was about the only physics course I passed at university, although I've had to learn more since then! Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Really? How many European scientists would have said "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Oh, quite a number, probably at least a plurality. For how many of them would such words have been recorded? Very few! Physchim62 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
            • • In the journals of the day, perhaps not. But the correspondence of many of Einstein's contemporaries has been published - as have their recollections of each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Science and scientific career

Although he became a public figure later in life, Einstein was primarily a scientist. I'm sorry to say this, but IMO, the article is nowhere near FA-class on his scientific work. The lead gives an OK sketch, but the coverage in the main article is a disaster, perhaps low B-class or high C-class. Whole sectors of his solo and collaborative work are not covered (see List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein for more details) and what is covered is done poorly. The science is not made accessible to lay-people, it's poorly organized, and it's generally poorly written, e.g., Albert Einstein#Paper on Brownian motion. There is little discussion of (1) the historical context and importance of the problems he addressed, (2) the originality and impacts of his solutions, (3) the reception by the scientific community, and (for most of his work) (4) the experimental confirmations of his theoretical predictions. The article doesn't convey why Einstein was considered by Lev Landau and many other experts to be the most productive physicist of the 20th century by far. If you choose to discuss his scientific contributions, then I expect that bringing this article to FA-class will be a huge undertaking, one needing the help of someone versed in theoretical physics. You could jettison Einstein's science and restrict the article to biographical details, but I fear the article would lose much of its appeal for readers.

One suggestion: separate the science from the scientific career. Under scientific career, you could track his various positions, honors, awards, etc. That should be easy enough to write up and reference. For his contributions to science, I recommend not covering them chronologically, but rather organizing them topically.

Minor points: The lead doesn't summarize the article, but I expect you know that. "Further reading" or a new "Bibliography" section should list the major biographies of Albert Einstein. Such a list might make for briefer, more scholarly references, similar to the approach used at William Shakespeare. The "See also" section has trivial elements, such as "List of coupled cousins".

I'm sorry to give such a grim diagnosis, but highlighting problems may lead to their resolution. Proteins (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with you: with the referencing and copyediting problems as well, GA-class might be a more realistic immediate objective than FA-class. Still, at least we have a sensible classification of Einstein's work in List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, which we can use to construct explanations for this article. Given the vast range of topics to cover, Summary style will be a necessity. Physchim62 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on comments here I added the Expand section template to some of the sketchy scientific points in the hopes someone will happen by and see. Its much more obvious that the little peer review link at the top of the page that most editors and readers don't notice. I understand if someone removes them though since I am new to the peer reviewing process and associated etiquette I am not sure if they are appropriate.--Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I removed the expand section templates and the headers for the separate Annus Mirabilis papers. A whole Annus Mirabilis Papers subarticle was split out of the biography (which despite the removal is still over-long) - the text in this article is quite properly just a brief summary. —teb728 t c 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)