This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Val Logsdon Fitch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Val Logsdon Fitch 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: May 30, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Val Logsdon Fitch appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 June 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: West Virginian ( talk · contribs) 20:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I will be engaging in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article and I find that it exceeds the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few suggestions and comments that must be addressed prior to its passage. Thank you for all your phenomenal work on this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Lede
Early life
Physics
Publications
All points addressed. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This has bothered me since it showed up on the Main Page's "Did you know?" section.
It seems this is a quip, and it was presented as if it was THE one objective answer to this question. It's presented as if someone asked ANY physicist the vague question "Why do we exist?" the automatic response for most of them would be to mention Fitch's work. Is this really the case? It's definitely a necessary condition for human life, but hardly sufficient. I'm not a scientists, but it seems that it's possible to make the case that any number of facts from the article Fine-tuned Universe could be equally presented as "the answer."
Anyway, I'm reluctant to change something that linked to the Main Page, but it just feels misleading the way quote is presented as more than just one person's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresdnhope ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Val Logsdon Fitch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Val Logsdon Fitch 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: May 30, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Val Logsdon Fitch appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 June 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: West Virginian ( talk · contribs) 20:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I will be engaging in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article and I find that it exceeds the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few suggestions and comments that must be addressed prior to its passage. Thank you for all your phenomenal work on this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Lede
Early life
Physics
Publications
All points addressed. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This has bothered me since it showed up on the Main Page's "Did you know?" section.
It seems this is a quip, and it was presented as if it was THE one objective answer to this question. It's presented as if someone asked ANY physicist the vague question "Why do we exist?" the automatic response for most of them would be to mention Fitch's work. Is this really the case? It's definitely a necessary condition for human life, but hardly sufficient. I'm not a scientists, but it seems that it's possible to make the case that any number of facts from the article Fine-tuned Universe could be equally presented as "the answer."
Anyway, I'm reluctant to change something that linked to the Main Page, but it just feels misleading the way quote is presented as more than just one person's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresdnhope ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)