101:
something like that) because it makes the choice of what information to add either obvious (i.e. redundant stating of the birth and death dates, even though they are easy to find in the article lead itself) or arbitrary (children, family, alma mater, etc., which may or may not be useful info). (In any case, if the problems with the article were on the level of not having one template or another, that would not be a good reason for a FAR, IMO. The problems are deeper.) --
80:. It would be great if someone would sit down with it and try and bring it up to standards but so far nobody has bothered. Some sections are very good, and are very carefully sourced; some are not. I'm putting this here both to call attention to the problems with this former featured article as well as to prepare for a possible FARC if it isn't improved substantially. I don't think it is among the best articles Knowledge has to offer, currently. --
354:- the article is still undercited, a number of the references used don't appear to be to reliable sources, and some of the references can't be tracked down (an ibid to a non-specific source). There are still prose and organizational problems in the article, which appears to have grown piecemeal, and it doesn't appear that anyone is watching over the article or making an organized attempt to improve it.
100:
Infoboxes are not required for bios; we've discussed it many times on that article's talk page and most people seem to think it looks better without one. Please don't add another one in. I think infoboxes in biographies are bad ideas unless someone is in an easily defined series (i.e. a president or
75:
This article was once FA but now when I look at it I doubt it would pass FA again. It is far, far too long, and some of the sections — the bits about his religion, political views, and "scientific philosophy" — look very amateurish and are not encyclopedic (the religion section is currently a bunch
90:
One thing I noticed straight away is that there's no infobox, which I thought was a bit strange for a bio. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how it's done. Otherwise it seems fine, even if it is a bit long.
200:
300:"On 30 March 1921, Einstein went to New York to give a lecture on his new Theory of Relativity, the same year he was awarded the Nobel Prize." Odd back-reference from year to date.
116:
It appears that this article has grown via piecemeal edits, with no oversight, since it's promotion. Besides everything already mentioned, some samples of problems throughout:
47:
278:, what do you have in mind ? There are a few details that could be added, but as far as I know, the current version looks fairly comprehensive.
51:
43:
373:
as per above. What a pity. And it's still easy to see problems in the prose, such as the following, which I've take from one short passage:
59:
55:
17:
297:"He was one of the formulators of the special and general theories of relativity." Um, last time I looked, he was the innovator.
274:
I agree with the comments above, and the article generally seems to be a mess. Sandy, I have one question: when you say that "
146:
There are external jumps, which should be converted to prose that is cited to the external reference (e.g.; Time magazine).
234:
212:
250:
243:
382:
Overuse of the retro-conditional "would" (e.g., "he would later describe", rather than just "he later described:).
203:. I suggest permanently demoting the article because this problem can inherently not be addressed by any wiki. -
395:
363:
344:
330:
310:
282:
267:
238:
216:
187:
171:
105:
95:
84:
67:
359:
325:
Suggested FA criteria concerns are length and focus (4), section formatting and general organization (2).
183:
is to the text "In the
Schilpp book" (a referent which is unique, well-known, and previously defined.)
167:
I didn't look at the prose because this article is in need of a major rewrite, reorganization anyway.
160:
Quotations should be moved to WikiQuote. Entire sections are not prose, rather battling quotations.
341:
355:
230:
208:
168:
64:
102:
81:
222:
184:
27:
179:
This is pacayune; one of the footnotes complained up has just been fixed; the footnote
327:
226:
204:
121:
92:
279:
392:
307:
385:"showed great mathematical ability early on." Last two words a bit informal.
155:
According to the authoritative biography by Pais (page 36, among others),
376:"instead focusing intensely only on what interested him"—awkward syntax.
264:
120:
A number of the websites used as references need to be examined per
225:. When did we start treating Britannica as a reliable source?! -
76:
of unsynthesized quotes). The article has been in this state for
152:
Here's something that needs to be converted to a citation:
201:
User:Samsara/Debunking an urban myth: Einstein at school
135:
The citations need work— here are a couple of samples:
379:"it's"—contractives not appropriate in this register.
149:
There are numerous cite tags, and many more needed.
303:"less-contested theory"—Shouldn't be hyphenated.
306:The heirarchy of the headings needs attention.
340:- Certain statements still need inline cites.
8:
223:Albert Einstein#Speculation and controversy
199:And the rumour never dies: compare with
163:Citizenship doesn't look comprehensive.
276:citizenship doesn't look comprehensive
7:
262:are regarded as reliable sources."
24:
18:Knowledge:Featured article review
124:; for example (there are more),
1:
396:11:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
364:21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
345:13:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
268:23:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
331:14:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
311:09:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
283:21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
239:16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
217:16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
188:03:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
172:00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
127:Science and cosmic religion.
106:19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
96:19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
85:18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
68:18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
411:
248:"Publications such as the
244:Knowledge:Reliable_sources
251:Encyclopædia Britannica
130:Einstein and religion.
48:History of Science
221:Here's the link:
42:Messages left at
34:Review commentary
402:
410:
409:
405:
404:
403:
401:
400:
399:
391:And lots more.
321:
319:FARC commentary
185:Septentrionalis
36:
31:
28:Albert Einstein
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
408:
406:
389:
388:
387:
386:
383:
380:
377:
367:
366:
348:
347:
334:
333:
320:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
304:
301:
298:
288:
287:
286:
285:
272:
271:
270:
195:
193:
192:
191:
190:
165:
164:
161:
158:
157:
156:
150:
147:
144:
143:
142:
139:
133:
132:
131:
128:
111:
110:
109:
108:
73:
72:
71:
70:
35:
32:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
407:
398:
397:
394:
384:
381:
378:
375:
374:
372:
369:
368:
365:
361:
357:
353:
350:
349:
346:
343:
342:LuciferMorgan
339:
336:
335:
332:
329:
326:
323:
322:
318:
312:
309:
305:
302:
299:
296:
295:
293:
290:
289:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
263:
259:
255:
252:
249:
245:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
197:
196:
189:
186:
182:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
170:
162:
159:
154:
153:
151:
148:
145:
140:
137:
136:
134:
129:
126:
125:
123:
119:
118:
117:
115:
107:
104:
99:
98:
97:
94:
89:
88:
87:
86:
83:
79:
69:
66:
62:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
40:
39:
38:
37:
33:
29:
26:
19:
390:
370:
351:
337:
324:
291:
275:
261:
257:
253:
247:
194:
180:
166:
113:
112:
77:
74:
41:
103:Fastfission
82:Fastfission
256:World Book
52:Philosophy
328:Marskell
292:Comments
246:states:
235:contribs
213:contribs
138:^ p. 671
114:Comments
260:Encarta
258:, and
227:Samsara
205:Samsara
93:Terri G
60:Science
56:Physics
371:Remove
352:Remove
338:Remove
280:Schutz
181:p. 671
78:months
58:, and
356:Sandy
169:Sandy
122:WP:RS
65:Sandy
16:<
393:Tony
360:Talk
308:Tony
231:talk
209:talk
44:Bio
362:)
294:.
265:Q0
254:,
237:)
233:•
215:)
211:•
141:^
63:.
54:,
50:,
46:,
358:(
229:(
207:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.