This article was nominated for deletion on 25 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
I am posting this in an attempt to solicit recommendations for changes and possibly a major rewrite of this book article. I have a copy of the Barnes & Noble hardcover reprint. I have an unusual background that lends itself to descriptions of technical books
I will be using Marc Seifer's book and possibly some of the books from the Schaum's outline series as references for the rewrite. I prefer to use the outline series as references instead of physics and electrical engineering textbooks because of their wide availability and relatively simple explanations of difficult topics.
I believe the book article needs an extensive rewrite simply because it does not adequately describe the contents of the book. One example which should be sufficient by itself is that the overview states that the book contains five lectures by Tesla and then lists five of the chapter headings from the book. This is simply incorrect information. While the book contains information from Tesla's lectures, it is actually a compilation of Tesla's researches in the ten years prior to the book's preparation. The book actually contains forty-three separate chapters and includes one on Tesla's display at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893. Martin's introduction is dated December, 1893.
Even the introductory section is misleading because it states that it is a "comprehensive compilation of Tesla's work " when it is only on his early research.
Historyphysics ( talk) 23:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This ==Expansion==
A general book article includes:
I'll be adding these elements to the article. J. D. Redding 20:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (PS., additional tips can be found at the project page.)
Which of the following are you objecting to?
Have you even read this book? These are links to articles about Tesla's life and work ... please read the book. J. D. Redding 03:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Who does this article reads like a news release? What is written that it is in an overly promotional tone? It's in a neutral point of view and is being expanded and supported by references/citations. Please explain or the tag should and will be removed.
It's not advertising, so don't mark it for speedy deletion. J. D. Redding 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure I'll think of other concerns. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
J. D. Redding 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) << Doesn't want to argue with people ignorant over the topic
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
A footnote in the 'overview' would be the appropriate section for a 'small note'. Or, if it is desired to be made explicit, that it can go in that section as a paragraph.
I agree the sources are needed ... and I am sorry that you don't know about the true biographies of Tesla, apparently. There are around 4 excellent biographies of Tesla, IIRC ... I can get a list of them for you if you want. J. D. Redding 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
About #1, above: Amazon often seems to get the author credits wrong, on books with unusual or complicated authorship. -- Srleffler ( talk) 04:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Can the tagger or someone else please answer these questions over the article...
Can someone explain what other different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking can be used?
I agree that it need more references. But that is only to say that it needs to expanded. Hell it's only been a day or two since the new material was put in. Geez ...
As to quotations ... it has two main quotes? WTF? Please explain or this should be removed ...
Lastly, please list any "peacock terms"' that the article possess so they can be addressed.
Thanks.
J. D. Redding 19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll start working on the "terms" listed ... modifying or citing the instances ...
I been formatting the book references in a MLA sytle. A switch over to harvard citations [ala., author, pg #] and then list the book in a "general information" part of the reference section could reduce the page bulk and could be easier ...
The quotations are relevant and shouldn't be removed.
J. D. Redding 19:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The "bible" quote is actually supported by the cited reference. I checked that one last night. -- Srleffler ( talk) 04:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
3 biographies that are top quality ... the last is Tesla's autobiography ..
J. D. Redding 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh you can add this one too ...
J. D. Redding 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Help us out a bit, both here and in the article: book titles should be in italics, and titles of articles, essays, scientific papers, and web pages should be in quotes. Book titles are written with every significant word capitalized. Other titles are written (on Wikipedia) with just the first letter of the title capitalized. Your references will be easier to interpret if you abide by these conventions. -- Srleffler ( talk) 04:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
References also should include the publisher, for books. This is especially important on Wikipedia, as it aids in evaluating the reliability of the reference. The O'Neil book appears not to be a reliable source.-- Srleffler ( talk) 05:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
I am posting this in an attempt to solicit recommendations for changes and possibly a major rewrite of this book article. I have a copy of the Barnes & Noble hardcover reprint. I have an unusual background that lends itself to descriptions of technical books
I will be using Marc Seifer's book and possibly some of the books from the Schaum's outline series as references for the rewrite. I prefer to use the outline series as references instead of physics and electrical engineering textbooks because of their wide availability and relatively simple explanations of difficult topics.
I believe the book article needs an extensive rewrite simply because it does not adequately describe the contents of the book. One example which should be sufficient by itself is that the overview states that the book contains five lectures by Tesla and then lists five of the chapter headings from the book. This is simply incorrect information. While the book contains information from Tesla's lectures, it is actually a compilation of Tesla's researches in the ten years prior to the book's preparation. The book actually contains forty-three separate chapters and includes one on Tesla's display at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893. Martin's introduction is dated December, 1893.
Even the introductory section is misleading because it states that it is a "comprehensive compilation of Tesla's work " when it is only on his early research.
Historyphysics ( talk) 23:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This ==Expansion==
A general book article includes:
I'll be adding these elements to the article. J. D. Redding 20:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (PS., additional tips can be found at the project page.)
Which of the following are you objecting to?
Have you even read this book? These are links to articles about Tesla's life and work ... please read the book. J. D. Redding 03:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Who does this article reads like a news release? What is written that it is in an overly promotional tone? It's in a neutral point of view and is being expanded and supported by references/citations. Please explain or the tag should and will be removed.
It's not advertising, so don't mark it for speedy deletion. J. D. Redding 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure I'll think of other concerns. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
J. D. Redding 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) << Doesn't want to argue with people ignorant over the topic
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
A footnote in the 'overview' would be the appropriate section for a 'small note'. Or, if it is desired to be made explicit, that it can go in that section as a paragraph.
I agree the sources are needed ... and I am sorry that you don't know about the true biographies of Tesla, apparently. There are around 4 excellent biographies of Tesla, IIRC ... I can get a list of them for you if you want. J. D. Redding 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
About #1, above: Amazon often seems to get the author credits wrong, on books with unusual or complicated authorship. -- Srleffler ( talk) 04:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Can the tagger or someone else please answer these questions over the article...
Can someone explain what other different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking can be used?
I agree that it need more references. But that is only to say that it needs to expanded. Hell it's only been a day or two since the new material was put in. Geez ...
As to quotations ... it has two main quotes? WTF? Please explain or this should be removed ...
Lastly, please list any "peacock terms"' that the article possess so they can be addressed.
Thanks.
J. D. Redding 19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll start working on the "terms" listed ... modifying or citing the instances ...
I been formatting the book references in a MLA sytle. A switch over to harvard citations [ala., author, pg #] and then list the book in a "general information" part of the reference section could reduce the page bulk and could be easier ...
The quotations are relevant and shouldn't be removed.
J. D. Redding 19:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The "bible" quote is actually supported by the cited reference. I checked that one last night. -- Srleffler ( talk) 04:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
3 biographies that are top quality ... the last is Tesla's autobiography ..
J. D. Redding 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh you can add this one too ...
J. D. Redding 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Help us out a bit, both here and in the article: book titles should be in italics, and titles of articles, essays, scientific papers, and web pages should be in quotes. Book titles are written with every significant word capitalized. Other titles are written (on Wikipedia) with just the first letter of the title capitalized. Your references will be easier to interpret if you abide by these conventions. -- Srleffler ( talk) 04:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
References also should include the publisher, for books. This is especially important on Wikipedia, as it aids in evaluating the reliability of the reference. The O'Neil book appears not to be a reliable source.-- Srleffler ( talk) 05:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)