Talk:Gerard K. O'Neill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Gerard K. O'Neill is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Page move
Google test: 5,380 for "Gerard O Neill" -K 3,840 for "Gerard K. O'Neill" 66 for "Gerard Kitchen O'Neill"
--Viriditas | Talk 05:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think this move was a mistake. He is almost always referred to as Gerard K. O'Neill or Gerry O'Neill. Britannica calls him Gerard K. O'Neill. His name is Gerard K. O'Neill on his books. Also, there are other people named Gerard O'Neill, some of them published authors. The test above is faulty because it probably picked up a number of people with the same name. I propose a page move back to the old title. Wronkiew (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] O'Neill cylinder
This article should link to O'Neill cylinder somewhere. Thue | talk 23:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done.ThuranX 15:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some comments
As requested by Wronkiew (talk · contribs) on my talk page, here are some comments/suggestions for improvements/queries for this article (based on this version):
- Everything that's in the introduction should be in the body of the text, so it shouldn't need any references.
- The references in the introduction are for details which I thought needed to be referenced as per WP:LEADCITE. Wronkiew (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of completely unreferenced paragraphs in "Space colonization", which I've marked.(you're very efficient!) Ideally, please check that everything is referenced.- I considered this section to be a summary of later subsections, so I left out the references. I added general references to both paragraphs, but there may be some details which do not appear in the cited references. These are, however, referenced when they are repeated later in the section. Wronkiew (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Has there been any work on O'Neill's space colonization ideas since 1986?
- What happened to the newsletter mentioned at the end of the "Origin of the idea (1969–1974)" section?
- Was he survived by his wife?
- Selected papers: has he written many? If so, then say how many. If not (less than 20), then consider doing a complete list.
- Selected patents: there's only 6, why not list them all?
- As a general rule, photo credits only go on the image pages, they aren't needed in the article.
- Have there been any autobiographical/biographical books written about O'Neill?
- Some sentences seem a little disjointed, e.g. the end of the first paragraph of the "Death and legacy" section.
I'll leave the GA assessment for someone else (I've never done a GA review myself), but I think that the article is certainly GA-standard. Nice work! Mike Peel (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
A couple more quick comments:
- How were his second and third books critically received? Were they popular, or ignored? Did they win any awards? The linked-to article on the second book really needs a thorough overhaul...
- Was the high speed train system concept developed any further after his death?
- O'Neill's colleague started a company to develop the magnetic trains. Their installations haven't been very high speed, but they are based on the same idea. I added some stuff about it in the "Death and legacy" section. 16:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- What relevance does "The rocket stage re-entered the atmosphere in May 2002" have to O'Neill? Was this the part which contained his ashes?
- It might be worth clarifying whether he was survived by Tasha, or his ex-wife Sylvia, or both.
Mike Peel (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fourth child
This came up at the FA review, he had three children with his first wife and was survived by four children. If anyone can get a source so that we can add the missing child into his bio a Barnstar awaits thee. ϢereSpielChequers 07:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- But if it isn't in a reliable source or it doesn't name his mother then I will take it away. Wronkiew (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review (abandoned)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gerard K. O'Neill/GA1 (abandoned). The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Check back soon! CarpetCrawler (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond my control, I cannot review this article. Please see my user page for details. I hope someone else can review this article in my place. Thank you! CarpetCrawler (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do it. Reyk YO! 07:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gerard K. O'Neill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'm taking over. Reyk YO! 07:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, I am passing this article as a GA. Here's why:
1) (a) The prose is lucid, gramatically correct and well-written. (b) I can see no obvious manual of style problems.
2) (a & b) The article is magnificently well-sourced. I can find not one instance where a possibly contentious statement hasn't got a source, or where the source doesn't back up the statement. Oodles of in-line citations as well.
(c) Neither can I find any original research or synthesis.
3) Definitely broad enough in its coverge of the subject. It's a lengthy article, but I didn't get bored from too many details when reading it, so I think the coverage is about right.
4) No problems with neutrality. This is not a hagiography or a smear page. The overall impression I get of Gerard O'Neill from reading it is mostly positive, but this is because the facts speak for themselves. I think the positives and criticisms documented in the article are stated neutrally and fairly. No worries here.
5) No evidence of edit warring or vandalism. Just a lot of improvements.
6) Pictures are generally fine. There's not too few or too many, and they illuminate the man and his work. Can't really ask for more than that. The only suggestion I'd make is to enlarge one or two of them slightly; they've got fine details that are hard to see.
Well done. This is a fine article and deserves its GA rating. Stone's suggestions have made it even better, but I think I'd have passed it anyway. Reyk YO! 01:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stone
- The first paragraph of the introduction is a short of the introduction and most of the info given there is comming up a second time in the two following paragraphs.
- I have attempted to use summary style in this article. The first paragraph places the subject of the article in context, as is recommended by WP:BETTER. The remaining two paragraphs summarize the article. There is some repetition where necessary to allow the prose to flow smoothly. Is there something specific about the introduction that needs to be improved? Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- For me a pioneer does something first, but he introduced new ideas without going into space himself.
- He was an only child and his junior by 21 years sound strange, but might be a standing expression I do not know.
- Is the publication list necesarry? Most of them can be used as references for exaple his Storage-Ring Synchrotron paper from 1956 is mentioned in the text, but has no inline citation.
- I have attempted to include a bibliography as complete as possible, as recommended by the Manual of Style and Mike Peel's review. If the list grows too long, I'll break it out into another article and keep the most interesting ones in "Selected papers". Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- The conferences attracted many who later became influential space activists. A name or two with citation would improve the sentence.
- why is the libration points not called Lagrangian points?
- much more quickly quicker?
- first mass driver prototype was O'Neil the inventor of the mass driver?
- The overall text sounds very positive, but upto now no space colonisation programm was started, due to several severe probles within the concept. O'Neil was very positive that technical solutions for all problems could be found, whereas some people think that the creation of a sustainable biosphere might be a very complex problem. His misconception that launch costs would be low with the shuttle also make him look over optimistic.--Stone (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Over-optimistic" is probably a good characterization of him. I have a few notes about the technical challenges involved with creating a sustainable biosphere, but I didn't want to get too bogged down in the technical details in what is supposed to be a biography. I'll do some more research and see what I can come up with. Thank you very much for your feedback. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
