Talk:Peter Scheuer
Feedback from New Page Review process
[edit]I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I am prepared to believe that he passes WP:NPROF, but this page needs considerable work. I have marked a couple of paragraphs where sources are needed, many other paragraphs also need them. In addition, opinions can only be included if they are supported by sources, otherwise they are original research and not allowed. Also, this is a bit too much like an essay on him rather than a Wikipedia page. Lastly, what about his awards? FRS or other? These matter here. I will leave the page here for it to be improved. If nothing is done in a reasonable timeframe it should be moved to a draft. Ask questions if needed.
Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I can add more references. But with respect I think you are being excessively critical. I have written Wikipedia pages for other cosmologists and astrophysicists: they all follow the same style, and I have not previously received any significant criticism from Wikipedia editors. The bulk of the content here concerns Scheuer's main scientific achievements, and these are accompanied in each case by a reference to the relevant publication. There is no question of the importance of the work being my personal opinion: the links I give all list the citations to the papers, from which their stature is objectively clear. So, for example, you request a citation to back up the statement that "The P(D) method remains widely used in astronomical imaging surveys". Well, the link to the P(D) paper shows you all the papers that have used this result (22 of them since 2020). Do I really need to repeat this information? Prof John Peacock (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BURDEN, this is estsblished policy. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I obviously support the principle of verification; it's just a question of whether every particle of information must be supported with an external citation. My impression is that many Wikipedia articles contain some unsupported pieces of peripheral information that are not directly relevant to the main subject. I have added additional references in all the places requested (and some that were not) that pertain to Scheuer's scientific achievements. I am attempting to find an official source verifying the dates of his appointment to university employment, but even if that is not forthcoming I think it should hardly be used as a reason to remove the article. Prof John Peacock (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am comparatively gentle on this topic. I know quite a few editors who just remove unsourced material from biographies and articles. For instance, in one case an undergraduate scholarship to a Cambridge college was removed as there was no independent verification. As I said up front, I would consider him notable, but... Ldm1954 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have now located additional information to validate Scheuer's career progression. I have added this, together with all the other references you requested. I therefore ask that you remove the "article has multiple issues" tag. As for your puzzling reluctance to consider Scheuer notable, I would simply point out that the problem of the radio source counts was important in the history of cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_counts). Scheuer solved this problem, and so would be a figure of demonstrable importance, even if he had done nothing else. You seem to feel that a truly notable figure would be an FRS, and certainly many of us consider it an injustice that Peter was never elected. But this is a subjective opinion that I do not propose to add to the article. Prof John Peacock (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I said at the front "many other paragraphs also need them", I have marked more for you and I do not claim that they are everything. Far too much of this page is WP:PEACOCK and/or WP:OR, statements which can only be included if there is a source that states those specifics. Please reread the requirements for pages, in particular WP:OR. As one example, you have
- it is unfortunately not widely appreciated that Scheuer invented the idea independently and at the same time
- As written that is your opinion and should be removed as WP:OR. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I accept your last point and have chosen a more neutral wording. But some of your other requirements seem excessive. You ask for a citation for the inventors of the Gunn-Peterson trough, but I already point to a Wikipedia article which not only explains what the GP trough is, but naturally says who did it. Similarly, you ask for a reference to explain "apparent transverse velocities greater than that of light", when the very next sentence says "This superluminal motion", pointing to a Wikipedia article that explains precisely what is going on. Yes, I understand that Wikipedia itself does not count as a citation verifying primary information, but it certainly is valid to explain things, rather than having to duplicate in the article things that are already well explained elsewhere - it then makes more sense simply to point to the existing explanation, as I have done. Prof John Peacock (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Remember it is stronger than that, Wikipedia is not a reputable source. What I have done in pages I edited is add an appropriate review after the location (which I pick from the link in most cases, or just GS on cites and a quick read to check). Yes, I am being picky but that is what WP:NPP is for, quality control.
- I think it is OK now and have removed the tags. You might be criticised for having bare html, I find that the WP citation tool often does a good job with html links in converting them to the "right" format. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. The article is better than the first version, which is what matters in the end. Prof John Peacock (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Minor comment: I would not add to PhD students unless they have their own pages on Wikipedia. There has been discussion of scrapping that entry completely. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. The article is better than the first version, which is what matters in the end. Prof John Peacock (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I accept your last point and have chosen a more neutral wording. But some of your other requirements seem excessive. You ask for a citation for the inventors of the Gunn-Peterson trough, but I already point to a Wikipedia article which not only explains what the GP trough is, but naturally says who did it. Similarly, you ask for a reference to explain "apparent transverse velocities greater than that of light", when the very next sentence says "This superluminal motion", pointing to a Wikipedia article that explains precisely what is going on. Yes, I understand that Wikipedia itself does not count as a citation verifying primary information, but it certainly is valid to explain things, rather than having to duplicate in the article things that are already well explained elsewhere - it then makes more sense simply to point to the existing explanation, as I have done. Prof John Peacock (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I said at the front "many other paragraphs also need them", I have marked more for you and I do not claim that they are everything. Far too much of this page is WP:PEACOCK and/or WP:OR, statements which can only be included if there is a source that states those specifics. Please reread the requirements for pages, in particular WP:OR. As one example, you have
- I have now located additional information to validate Scheuer's career progression. I have added this, together with all the other references you requested. I therefore ask that you remove the "article has multiple issues" tag. As for your puzzling reluctance to consider Scheuer notable, I would simply point out that the problem of the radio source counts was important in the history of cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_counts). Scheuer solved this problem, and so would be a figure of demonstrable importance, even if he had done nothing else. You seem to feel that a truly notable figure would be an FRS, and certainly many of us consider it an injustice that Peter was never elected. But this is a subjective opinion that I do not propose to add to the article. Prof John Peacock (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am comparatively gentle on this topic. I know quite a few editors who just remove unsourced material from biographies and articles. For instance, in one case an undergraduate scholarship to a Cambridge college was removed as there was no independent verification. As I said up front, I would consider him notable, but... Ldm1954 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I obviously support the principle of verification; it's just a question of whether every particle of information must be supported with an external citation. My impression is that many Wikipedia articles contain some unsupported pieces of peripheral information that are not directly relevant to the main subject. I have added additional references in all the places requested (and some that were not) that pertain to Scheuer's scientific achievements. I am attempting to find an official source verifying the dates of his appointment to university employment, but even if that is not forthcoming I think it should hardly be used as a reason to remove the article. Prof John Peacock (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BURDEN, this is estsblished policy. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)