Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 23, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 July 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ok so what happened after 2003? Nergaal ( talk) 23:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 12:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I am starting a GA review of this article. North8000 ( talk) 12:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
A far reaching claim is present in two places:
Such would need particularly strong sourcing, and it has no sourcing at all. Also the articles on him and the field do not make this claim. Suggest dialing it back or getting strong sourcing for it. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC) North8000 ( talk) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
What an interesting and well-written article! And this is in an area which is complex on several levels (the Science, the debates etc.). I'm pretty much done reviewing and have a question on one remaining item. The article describes Smalley making what I think is is an implausible claim: "Smalley recounted his recent exprerience during an outreach visit to middle and high school students, saying that nearly half of them thought that self-replicating nanorobots were possible and that most were worried about the results of them spreading across the world. " I would think it amazing if even 5% of students were even aware of the (putative) possibility of self-replicating nanorobots, much less being concerned about them taking over the world. Were there any missing nuances / qualifiers in the actual statement? (such as those being nanotechnology students?). If it stands as-is (e.g. Smalley making such an implausible claim) the I think it would need a source. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Thia has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work. An interesting and informative article on a complex topic. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 00:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
(This is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)
What a well written, interesting and informative article! An double so for an area that is complex to cover at several levels (science, the debate itself etc.) This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Reviewer
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 23, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 July 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ok so what happened after 2003? Nergaal ( talk) 23:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 12:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I am starting a GA review of this article. North8000 ( talk) 12:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
A far reaching claim is present in two places:
Such would need particularly strong sourcing, and it has no sourcing at all. Also the articles on him and the field do not make this claim. Suggest dialing it back or getting strong sourcing for it. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC) North8000 ( talk) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
What an interesting and well-written article! And this is in an area which is complex on several levels (the Science, the debates etc.). I'm pretty much done reviewing and have a question on one remaining item. The article describes Smalley making what I think is is an implausible claim: "Smalley recounted his recent exprerience during an outreach visit to middle and high school students, saying that nearly half of them thought that self-replicating nanorobots were possible and that most were worried about the results of them spreading across the world. " I would think it amazing if even 5% of students were even aware of the (putative) possibility of self-replicating nanorobots, much less being concerned about them taking over the world. Were there any missing nuances / qualifiers in the actual statement? (such as those being nanotechnology students?). If it stands as-is (e.g. Smalley making such an implausible claim) the I think it would need a source. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Thia has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work. An interesting and informative article on a complex topic. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 00:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
(This is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)
What a well written, interesting and informative article! An double so for an area that is complex to cover at several levels (science, the debate itself etc.) This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Reviewer
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)