Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Is Google Making Us Stupid?/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Gary King 16:43, 8 February 2009 [1].

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Nominator(s): An Argento Fan (talk)

Well, it is with great confidence and even a little ego that I am leaving you all an article I have written about Nicholas Carr's essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" My editor Skomorokh and I have been collaborating on this article for some time now. Skomorokh, who almost didn't want to review the article because he had made a few minor edits early on, has been invaluable. Along the way, I have actually spotted a few of the people I have written about in my article, such as David Wolman editing his own article, Seth Finkelstein repeatedly protecting Jaron Lanier's article, John Brockman pulling a prank on himself, and even neuroscientist James Olds editing a few articles in his field. All of you really have to read Norman Doidge's 2007 book The Brain That Changes Itself. I used Doidge's book for biographical information about the work of neuroscientist Michael Merzenich whom James Olds discusses in relation to Carr's essay, but it is also an excellent introduction to the topic of neuroplasticity. If neuroplastic research were applied to user interface design you might see a sea change in the way Internet navigation is done. Interestingly, working toward a featured article is an uber act of contemplation. I have read every commentary on the essay that is out there, and if you think you know of one that I have not yet read please let me know. Finally, Nicholas Carr is working on a forthcoming book that will really delve into this subject and I am waiting on tenterhooks for its release. Sincerely, An Argento Fan (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Huge swathes of the article are uncited, and that's just for a start. I'll see what else I can dig up. Skinny87 (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also prose problems. To pick a random sample: 'In Carr's essay, the science about how the brain's neural circuitry can be rewired is introduced with an example in which Friedrich Nietzsche is said to have been influenced by a technology' - long-winded, poor prose that needs to be rewritten.
I changed to In Carr's essay, he introduces the science informing that the brain's neural circuitry can be rewired with an example in which Friedrich Nietzsche is said to have been influenced by a technology..-An Argento Fan (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the article also seems to be OR and not related to the article in a great way, but that might just be my unfamiliarity with the subject. Skinny87 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I have tried to be as faithful to the sources as is possible. If some of the links are no longer available I can post up copies of these articles.-An Argento Fan (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix all dab links using the dabfinder tool. Skinny87 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you. Can you please list all prose problems you find. I will correct them one by one then. -An Argento Fan (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article history shows you have no edits to the article. How does that reconcile with your nom statement? Aptery gial 10:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nominator may be a sockpuppet of banned user ManhattanSamurai, who is one of the primary contributors to this article. Skinny87 (talk)

Which is what I was hinting at, I just didn't think anyone could be that obvious. Aptery gial 11:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close - the "nominator" is a blocked sockpuppet of a banned user. Graham Colm ^Talk 11:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Oppose and speedy close - Not only is user a blocked sockpuppet, the article is not at FA levels IMHO. Skinny87 (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O+SC: Everbody else is. Aptery gial 12:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - large chunks unreferenced, still at GAN, and nominator is not a significant contributor nor did he ask on the talk page if the article was ready. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt have no opinion on the article, but this page was created by a banned user. Per WP:RBI this page should be nuked.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for reviewers: What is unreferenced? If you are referring to the "Synopsis" section, it is usually not necessary to cite because it would just be referencing back to the article/book. -maclean 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.