Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 18 December 2012

Stephen Hawking is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 12, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 20, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted February 6, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed February 16, 2012 Good article nominee Listed February 29, 2012 Peer review Reviewed March 28, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 17, 2012 Peer review Reviewed August 10, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 3, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disability Stephen Hawking is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Education Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mathematics Mid‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Biographies Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of Oxford High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection Template:V0.5

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Text and/or other creative content from Thorne–Hawking–Preskill_bet was copied or moved into Stephen_Hawking with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Infobox issues

I mentioned in the first FAC that there was information in the infobox that was neither mentioned nor cited anywhere in the text. I have requested citations for this info-- my suggestion is not that the citations be added to the infobox, rather that either the information is worthy of cited text, and should be cited in text, or it should be removed from the infobox. As it stands now, readers have no means of verifying information in the infobox.

I also pointed out in the first FAC that "he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology" was not supported by the citation given; that text has been removed from the article body, and yet it is still in the lead, uncited as far as I can tell.

I also mentioned in the first FAC that some other text was not supported by citations, and I see those issues persist.

Is anyone watching this article? Were any of the issues from the first FAC corrected before the second and third FACs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, it's great to hear from you again. I've removed the research director line - good catch :), and I also believe I've removed the infobox items that you tagged. Regarding the FA process - It's my understanding that those items were added to the infobox after the FA status was awarded , but I may have got that wrong. Also, there were a great many changes made to the article following your review - a quite detailed response was posted at at the time, but I believe you (quite rightly I now understand) reverted the post because it was after the cut-off point (which is why I asked for advice a few days later on your talk page ). I am anxious that any remaining issue you have with the article are addressed, it's always great to get the perspective of such an experienced editor - what would you like us to do? (Also, if you'd like to get involved, I've got a favour to ask of you...) Fayedizard (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for reminding me to look at those posts-- the first FAC was long ago, and I'm sorry I wasn't around to respond to followups (long spring, summer and fall of extensive re-landscaping here)!

On the infobox, no, here's the diff from the time it was promoted til now. Those items were still in the article when it was promoted (indicating someone wasn't making sure previous issues had been addressed). Anyway, you've removed them now, so that is solved. But, I hope you'll keep the article watchlisted and address the addition of unsourced text, or citation needed tags, as quickly as you're able so the article won't deteriorate and end up at WP:FAR. An article on a popular figure of this nature will be hit routinely by all kinds of IP and other edits, so keeping it watched and up to snuff is essential.

On the TFAR page, I see you've asked that "senior editors" resolve the text not supported by citations. I'm not sure what you mean by "senior editor"; as you brought the article through FAC, one assumes you are the most likely to have access to and be able to check all of the sources, and be familiar enough with the sources to know how to correct the text. If not, perhaps you should ping the editor who added the remaining citation tags, as that editor presumably has the sources.

I don't have enough free time to get much more involved here-- I just saw this at TFAR and remembered I had reviewed during the first FAC. But ask away on the favor-- I'm willing to help as I have time. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, and now a new editor has added back the students, with a citation to a user-submitted source. That source doesn't seem to meet WP:RS, not sure of the oversight since it is user-submitted data, and why are these students worthy of mention in the infobox, if there is nothing to say about them in the text? Do you have a reliable source for the student list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Another oops, rather than cite the director of the Centre for Cosmology, that text was deleted ... but this source says he was the founder of the Centre. Now we have no mention of the Centre at all. I'm a bit worried about how this article is being edited; at this stage, basic information like this should not be in dispute. Fayedizard, were you consulted in advance about the article's preparedness for the mainpage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've re-removed the students list on the basis that a) they aren't in the text, and b) I don't believe the source is sound enought. Of course, Hawking had a great many students and a number of them pop up in the various autobiographies and such - some with much greater roles than others. Making the call is always going to be a subjective one, and I think we should be open to including them on a case by case basis - on the other hand Hawking has had an interesting and complex life (I remember being amused during the FAC process that I had to remove reference to his TED talk for being relatively uninteresting, which I found pretty cool at the time). Similarly with the Centre for Cosmology - if people would like it in then I'm all for it, at the moment my opinion is that it's not really important enought to put in, but it's not a strongly held opinion...Fayedizard (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Major awards and honours

I wonder if this list could be put more toward the end of the article rather than in the middle where it seems to to interrupt the flow. I don't know what the FAC criteria for this is, so maybe this request is not right and should be ignored. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree. There are several other lists (e.g books and films) that I think would be better at the end of the article. Slp1 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Major": a word horribly vague and overused IRL, and on wiki. Who defines "Major"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good question. The implication is that he won many others (which he probably did) but "2003 Michelson Morley Award of Case Western Reserve University" doesn't sound "major" though maybe it is.

An unrelated nitpick: he is quoted as saying that his disease has not hindered him from having "a very attractive family". I just wonder why this is quoted, since it's not clear what he is referring to - presumably it's Jane and his children - but he's had two wives so maybe this quote is too vague. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to check - is the proposal to move just the list - or the 'Recognition' section it is part of? Fayedizard (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability problems

Using a since-retired legitimate alternative account, in September I corrected several citations and added various citation needed and failed verifiability tags to parts of this article. Nothing seems to have happened to fix this, and now it seems that they are an issue at WP:TFAR where I am accused of being a POV-pusher (of what, I might ask... properly cited articles??? Sounds good to me!!!). Anyway, no worries, life is too short.

Unfortunately, there are many more of problems of this sort. I corrected one of them this evening, and also added back a citation needed tag where it was needed. What would you like me to do about some of the others I've spotted? Add more of the citation needed and not-in-citation tags? One easy start place for people to starting checking are the Popular Culture and Popular Publications sections. For reference here are some of the problems that I have noticed...

• information regarding the two films about him are unreferenced
• the publication date of A Brief History of Time is not mentioned in the citation given.
• The text says that "A Brief History of Time was followed by The Universe in a Nutshell (2001)", no citation and actually the one didn't follow the other: as the list below it says Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays came next, in 1994.
• There is no citation for the sentence about A Briefer History of Time, including the motivation for writing it.
• The publication date of George's Secret Key to the Universe is not mentioned in the citation given. It couldn't... the book was published in 2007 and the source in 2006.

Slp1 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A book mentioned in text serves as its own citation for publication date. The motivation for Briefer is very easy to source as it appears in the book's Foreword on pages 1 and 2. Regarding the phrase "followed by", you are arguing for exact mathematical precision but English allows more leeway, selectively omitting some events such that a later event can be said to have followed an earlier one, even though intervening events occurred. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that book publication dates aren't a big issue, but they do need to be cited somewhere for verification purposes. I just corrected one that was wrong, for example. This is even important more so you are going specific with a date such as April 1, which is not generally listed in the book being published. (Though I now note in the case of April 1 that Hawking mentions that date in the foreword to the tenth anniversary edition so I will add that shortly.)

And yeah, "followed by" doesn't have to be exact, but there does to have a reason for mentioning particular books and omitting others. Is there is a reason here? What is it? The one that did follow chronologically was a New York Times bestseller too. However, maybe the idea is more of of one being a sequel of the other, and if so that language might be clearer, but we still need a citation, for being a sequel, for being popular etc.

And yeah, I imagine most of this stuff can be cited: it's just that it isn't currently; and sometimes when there is a citation and you look carefully only part of the information is present. Slp1 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that the citation needed tags have been removed from the illness section, with some textual changes made, but unfortunately, as far as I can see, problems with verifiability remain.

• Maybe I am missing something, but where in this article is there anything about preparing remarks in advance?

Neither of http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21323-the-man-who-saves-stephen-hawkings-voice.html these] sources talk about needing "only a few characters to signal a complete word or phrase" (which I think is actually wrong: it sounds from this that Hawking is using abbreviation expansion codes of words/phrases, when the sources I've seen in the past and the very bad video I saw once showed him using word prediction).

1975-present section: "(Hawking famously used the example of broken teacups reassembling)"- as far as I can see in chapter 14 the broken teacups metaphor is not attributed by Hawking. Maybe he did use it but it doesn't say so there or that he did so "famously".

As an aside, aren't the pages numbers in books required per WP:Page numbers? Their absence makes checking for verifiability quite difficult and timeconsuming. Slp1 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

family?

Repeating my comment above: he is quoted as saying that his disease has not hindered him from having "a very attractive family". I just wonder why this is quoted, since it's not clear what he is referring to - presumably it's Jane and his children - but he's had two wives so maybe this quote is too vague.

Also, since his wife, Jane, has written two books on Hawkings, shouldn't there be more included about his personal life? Perhaps some description of his personality, how he got along with his wives and children despite his disability, etc.? Nothing gossipy, but just some indications such as usually included in biographies if the information is available? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a few things going on here - first of all I'm very cautions about increasing the amount of personal life stuff - all though the GA and FA process stuff on personal life was parsed out (I've come to argree with the recommendations as well) because it was a touch on the trival side, and regularly the point was made that articles such as these can be magnets for cruft. The biographies do have lots of charming little details (I particularly enjoy a story about him running over Prince Charles's foot), and I'm happy to put any and all of those in if that's the concensus - but I strongly suspect that the other side of the argument is that he's notable first and foremost as a scientist, and secondly as a disability icon. It's certainly open to interpretation but the impression I get from going though the FAC process is that most of the opinion was against... what do people on here think? Fayedizard (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If someone's going to add more family details I would like to see what they are and how they are treated before passing judgement. In general the family stuff should be limited to main themes so that the scientist is featured rather than the man. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, maybe not "family". I'd be interested in more details related to how he managed to be so productive, how he wrote and organized his work etc. when he wrote only one word per minute. I thought family members (his nurses/wives) might shed some light on this. But I defer to the judgment of others.

I still object to the ambiguity of the quote "a very attractive family". I don't think there is a need for a quote since the wording is not unusual, and especially since the following sentence in the material quoted includes specific members of his family as well as others. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's only recently that his communication rate has slowed to one word a minute so his productivity was much higher in the past. Roger (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Could the article be updated to reflect this? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

too many lists

The article has a lot of lists. I think as mentioned above. Could some of them be put into prose? The one "Major awards and honours" really breaks up the article and leaves a lot of white space in the middle. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The article passed FA with them in; but more to the point, there are, for all practical purposes, only two actual list sections, both relevant and both appropriate as lists, with every item on them sourced. While there is an argument to be made for prosification of lists in many articles, here I don't see how the Major Awards and Honours section really could have such a long list prosified without looking even more ridiculous. I suppose there's an argument for putting both list sections together down at the end of the article where the list of publications is, and maybe that would clean things up a little, but I really don't see tossing or prosifying the lists... and the tag didn't help, as it was not the right tag for this, it was overkill about what is basically a style and layout question. Montanabw 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you and others (above) have also. See Slp1's comment above. A FA should not have a list in the middle that leaves unnecessary white space. There is no reason that list has to be where it is. As suggested above the Major Awards and Honours section could be moved toward the bottom. Also it is unclear, as someone commented above, what "Major" means in this context. Please see section above "Major awards and honours" and SandyGeorgia's comment "ugh" about the word "major". What is the "Michelson Morley Award"? Also, some of the many lists at the bottom could be prosified, yes? Are they all really necessary as lists? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So, if no one objects by tomorrow, move the honours list down and cut the word "major." (I agree that "major" is probably unneeded, though I suppose it keeps out stuff like the PTA good citizen award or something...) That doesn't seem like a big deal. There is only one list section at the bottom, in three subsections, one for books and two for other media. How can you prosify those? They are sourced and annotated. They certainly aren't excessive, particularly if you were to compare them to, say a filmography list of a major actor like Bette Davis (another FA article). I think we have a minor formatting concern here, not anything that's a big content issue. Montanabw 21:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article is very listy (and still short on biographical info as I pointed out in the first FAC); how this article passed FAC is a topic in and of itself, considering that issues raised in previous FAs are supposed to be resolved before nomination, and they weren't. But there is nothing delegates can do when articles get faulty review. The article passed FA with inaccurate text and without prior issues being addressed; that says something about the quality of the reviews. Now we have diluted text (because so much has been deleted), listy text, and text removed that was requested at FAC for comprehensiveness, and still a very short but listy bio on an important scientist; I think FAR in a few months (when FAR instructions allow) is a better option here than TFAR. I'm disapointed that the community is !voting for such an article to appear on the mainpage, and I don't understand why folks do that. We had a hard enough time with Imagine (song) on TFA, although many folks pointed out it was not up to standards; must we keep doing same? If the substantive issues here aren't addressed within a few months, this article is on my FAR list. The problem here is that cutting the lists reveals how brief this article is-- we don't cover a scientist of this importance with lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Two lists? More content may be helpful, agreed, but tagging over two sets of lists? Why not those with these concerns just write more material and improve the article? Really, content is good. Montanabw 00:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm really lost, and I'm surely not the only one. I understood that Mathew proposed moving one of the lists - nobody particularly objected and I asked if we were talking about the list or the section containing the list (I think they probably belong together, but I'm persuadable) - I don't understand why that thread just stopped and moved down here... can someone give me a bit of context? I also understand that Sandy doesn't believe that the article as it stands should have passed FA - which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold - although I honestly struggle with the detail and would love to work with Sandy to address these - and I suspect that the best way of dealing with this is for me to nominate it for FAR - would that be acceptable to everyone? I'm just trying to find concreate things to move forward on... Lastly I really don't understand why there is a banner on the top of the page - and I'd like to remove it on the grounds that there is constructive conversation going on - would anyone mind? and if anyone would like to fill me in on some of the fine detail that would be great to... Fayedizard (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Montanabw misunderstands the nature of the problems as outlined by Sandy. The lists are a symptom of the problems. As far as the banner is concerned, I don't object to its removal as long as you address the problems of the lists. Re other problems, it's probably best to contact Sandy as she has a more comprehensive understanding of the FA process than I do. As Sandy says, "still a very short but listy bio on an important scientist". I agree with Sandy that the article shouldn't appear on the main page in its current state. As Sandy says, once you remove the lists, there's very little left to the article. I've read books on Hawking and by Hawking and I think there's more information available about him that could be in the article. Currently it seems skimpy. Perhaps looking at other FA articles about important scientists would help, like Charles Darwin or J. Robert Oppenheimer or others. Comparing an article on a scientist to one on Bette Davis (as someone does above) is not appropriate. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, it sounds like you'd be willing to remove the tag if folks would take this seriously?? That would be a good outcome for all. This article has 2,700 words of prose without the lists; that is ridiculous in the extreme in general, and even more so when specifically compared to other important FA bios and relative to the amount of published info about the man. I mentioned these problems in the first FAC; it wasn't addressed. I wasn't around for the second and third FACs; I don't know who supported, but it's a shame. When and if this article is written, the new content will need to be reviewed. Houston, we have a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

yes, I'm willing to remove it. I didn't know what tag to add to indicate my concern. Just wanted to get someone's attention. As you say, there is little left excluding the lists. MathewTownsend (talk)

Okay, it's great to be getting somewhere, now I don't want to go rushing off on this until I understand each step. Who is it that you want to take this seriously (I pressuming that 'this' in this instance is the proposed move/proposed prosing of one of more of the lists)? and what are the actions that they can take to show you that they are taking it seriously? Fayedizard (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now the FA - related stuff is in another thread - how can editors on this article show you that they are serious about the list issue? Fayedizard (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe start by asking that it be withdrawn from TFAR, since significant contributor requests are honored, so that the article can be worked on outside of time pressures? And then start writing; if I see progress, I won't bring the WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I do understand that there are things that you'd like to do differently on a fundermental level - I am taking them on board and I think it were making excellent progress on the FAR issue in the thread below. In this thread my focus is on responding to the banner that Mathew put accross the top of the article that was in relation to specific issues about lists - if we can have a conversation about that then we can hopefully make the changes that Mathew would like, and then he can remove the banner pressuming he's satisfied. Fayedizard (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I moved the first list so it was down with the others and tweaked a subsection heading. Now, if someone wants to get SPECIFIC about what ELSE needs to happen (what I have heard above is not specific, it's generalized whining; "too many lists"? Well, what shall we toss then?), and thus when His Great Royal and Always Correct Matthewness deems it worthy to remove his tag or, if that never occurs, when the consensus of the group is that the tag can be removed, regardless of the views of the person who put it up. Montanabw 21:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

next step (after fixing the lists)

Hi Fayedizard, I understand that you may be confused and discouraged by the comments above. Looking at the article history, I see that you were given some very good advice, but also that major problems in the article were overlooked by (what seems to me) superficial "supports" that didn't offer you the feedback needed. At Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive1, SandyGeorgia offered very good and extensive advice that if followed would immensely improve the article. I suggest that you examine her comments in depth and follow them as best you can.

At Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive2, the last comment reads:

Comment For the world's most recognisable scientist today, I am shocked by how short this article is: less than 50 kB. Is there really so little to say about this iconic 70-year-old man? To compare with an equally well-known physicist, Featured article J. Robert Oppenheimer, that the latter article is 110 kB. Even Featured article Edward Teller (though only 60 kB) appears to be much longer, wordcount-wise.—indopug (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Although at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive3, the article was passed, there are some good suggestions to improve the article.

indopug repeats his comment from the prior nomination. (see above).

He adds: "For starters, there's very little of Stephen Hawking the author (there more here about a bet he made than all the bestselling books he wrote put together). Forr eg: why did he write Brief History, what did the critics say about it, why was so popular, does it have a place in the modern non-fiction canon (Time 100 for Non-Fiction, for eg) and similarly for his other books. Also, there's nothing about Hawking the iconic public figure? Surely there must be a lot of commentary about that ("As a person of great interest to the public"—why, exactly?)? As it is, with its focus on scientific achievement, lists of books written and awards won, the article has a bare-bones résumé feel to it. I think it needs more drama."

I think the third review was very superficial. I also repeat the suggestion that you look at the above mention featured articles on scientists to get an idea of how to expand the article. I don't think his ideas and his thinking is adequately covered. Nor is there much to explain what motivated him. In a way his disability overshadows his thinking and his important contributions to physics. I know I read his books to learn about his contributions to physics, only superficially covered here. Also, I think the physical challenges he faces could be expanded and how he coped with specific ones. I found the article frustrating because it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, and I'm no expert on Hawking or physics.

These are my thoughts and others may disagree. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fayed, next step is called "roll up your sleeves, get to a library, and do the work" that an FA requires, and that should have been done before these 2,700 words were awarded with a star by driveby supporters at FAC. And pay attention when people who know the topic professionally are telling you that your text is not supported by the sources, because they understand and know the topic, and anyone can read the sources. You mentioned at WP:TFAR that you wanted "senior editors" to help. No, you brought this to FAC, you should be the person who has the sources, you should have been the person to write a comprehensive article. If you are unable to do that, it will end up at WP:FAR. The "senior editors" you mention (whatever those are) might include an admin who added accurate tags to the article, because the text was not supported by the sources. I found a lot of that in my first review-- enough to raise concern that there may still be more of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi both, thank you for spliting the FA-based issue away from the list issue, I think that's certainly made it easier to follow the discussion. I'm, obviously, not able to comment on the amount of time that any of the reviewers, GA, PR, or FA spent on the article, but I, and I suspect many readers, are greatful for the the time they put in and the way they have all shaped the article (for what it's worth indopug's comments created a nicely enguaged thread with compromises from several viewpoints) . This, of course, includes Sandy, whose Oppose in the first review caused a great many changes to the article. From my reading of the thread, the issues that you both raise appear to be as much about the process of the FA review as it is about this particular article. Given that Sandy has already stated an suggested we take the article to FAR - I suspect that's the best route, as then we can have the wider discussion about the FA reviewing process, "driveby supporters", "superficial "supports"", and so on. I understand that an editor is only aloud to have one nomination for FAR at a time - I'm happy to do it on Sandy's Behalf if that works for people.Fayedizard (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in no rush to bring this to FAR; it can wait until after Christmas, so the one nom at a time doesn't concern me. I am concerned that following on the debacle that was Imagine (song) as TFA (another article that many argued was unprepared) that we not run another unprepared article. This article needs work; it is not mainpage ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fayed, I also think it is important for you to know that the FAR won't be looking at the FAC process itself and whether it was or was not adequate. That's all in the past now, and the FA status is a done deal. FAR will instead focus on whether the article currently meets the standards expected of an FA, and if people believe not, then by working to try to bring things up to snuff. It would be much better to try and address people's concerns before going to FAR, where the stress and pressure is much greater, and there is a risk that the FA status would get removed. And I am sure that everybody would prefer to avoid both FAR and obviously the removal of the FA status. People have already started to work on improving aspects of the article, which is great, but I have to agree with Mathew and Sandy that there are still lots of issues in terms of comprehensiveness, verifiability etc, and it would be nice to sort these out as soon as possible. I could try and help more than I have been, but only if you want the help.Slp1 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Top-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• FA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Disability articles
• WikiProject Disability articles
• FA-Class education articles
• Mid-importance education articles
• WikiProject Education articles
• FA-Class England-related articles
• High-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• FA-Class mathematics articles
• Mid-priority mathematics articles
• FA-Class physics articles
• Top-importance physics articles
• FA-Class physics articles of Top-importance
• FA-Class physics biographies articles
• Physics biographies articles
• FA-Class University of Oxford articles
• High-importance University of Oxford articles
• FA-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
• WikiProject University of Oxford articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English