The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 14:17, 13 September 2010 [1].

---

Fermi paradox[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Fermi paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article review/Fermi paradox/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: User:Marskell, WikiProject Astronomy

This article was FA in 2004, demoted in 2006 and re-promoted the same year. Now, I am putting Fermi Paradox on FAR again do to failure of 1c. The reason is due to ((Citation needed)) tags and unreferenced sections (Ex: "Life is periodically destroyed by naturally occurring events" and "We are the first to have radio technology"). GamerPro64 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 'We are the first to have radio' was a duplicate of an earlier (referenced) argument - I removed it. LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Added references for 'periodically destroyed'. LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see way too many problems, but here are just a few:
• "[E]ven if travel is hard, if life is common, why don't we detect their radio transmissions? (Note that the term "Great Silence" is often used synonymously with "Fermi paradox", as in the Brin paper which apparently coins the term.)" — OR right there in the intro. There should be no reason to use "note that x," it's stating the obvious.

  I agree, and removed this, also since Great Silence and Fermi Paradox are not the same. LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is unclear which version of the paradox is stronger." (in Basis section) — Move this up into the last paragraph; it shouldn't be a standalone.

  I disagree - this is a case where combining does not make sense. Attaching it to the previous paragraph results in a wild jump in topic in the last sentence. It could be moved it up to the part where it states the paradox can be stated in two ways, but then the note makes no sense since it compares the two ways, which have not yet been discussed. So in this case I think the stand-alone sentence is the best alternative. Perhaps someone else has a better idea for how to re-write? LouScheffer (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Same with "Frank Drake himself has commented that the Drake equation is unlikely to settle the Fermi paradox; instead it is just a way of 'organizing our ignorance' on the subject." (in the Drake Equation header)

  Agree, fixed this one. LouScheffer (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole article reads like an essay, with passages such as "As human beings do not possess interstellar travel capability, such searches are being remotely carried out at great distances and rely on analysis of very subtle evidence. This limits possible discoveries to civilizations which alter their environment in a detectable way, or produce effects that are observable at a distance, such as radio emissions. It is very unlikely that non-technological civilizations will be detectable from Earth in the near future."

• This is both true and a useful introduction. I could easily see a reader looking at this and not the details of the searching methods. LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The other way astronomy might settle the Fermi paradox is through a search specifically dedicated to finding evidence of life. These are discussed below." — again, stating the obvious. No need to say "these are discussed below."

  OK, removed. LouScheffer (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeated use of first person, such as "so the odds we exist at such a moment are low."

  'We' here is short for 'the human race', and a first-person reference in form only. I think it reads better as 'we', but have no problem with replacing it if others think we should. LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the footnotes explaining the equations should be made into separate footnotes so that they aren't combined with the references.
• All Setifaq.org links are dead.

  Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a reliable source?

  It is the official website of the project, they cite many RS documents inside. Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Poorly formatted references throughout. Very few credits to author, date or access date.

  Went though and reformatted/added authors/dates/accessdates where possible. Work is needed on text and adding a few refs, which I hope will be done by someone else :). Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article made my head hurt trying to decipher some parts. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TenPoundHammer. It's User:Marskell. Unfortunately my password has been scrambled.

Many, many people have worked on this article and I think it provides an incredible archive of the topic for future reference. Bringing it back to FA standard is another thing, however. I will try to work on it but it may take a couple of months rather than the usual two weeks. There's a book I've got to find that can tidy up the page nicely. User:Timothymarskell

Hi Marskell! As long as work is progressing and there are interested editors, the review will stay open as long as necessary. The goal here is to improve articles and bring them back to FA status, rather than delisting them out of hand. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought this through and I believe the best thing for this article is that it lose FA status at this point. It needs be shortened and better directed.

I'll happily participate with other editors if any wish to work on it under the FAR spotlight. I do think, however, that a FAR collaboration may cause the article to expand and become more unmanageable than it is now. Timothymarskell (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFA, already listed at FFA, only needs to be moved if delisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist for FA criteria concerns. Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - While there were some problems addressed, they weren't enough to keep its FA status. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per my concerns, none were addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see only "This article makes my head hurt". It's hard for anyone else to see if this this has been addressed, or not. LouScheffer (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of them are still wanting references on the theories and attributions of opinions, I beleive YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• I understand this is your objection, which I sympathize with (though I wish people would be more specific about *which* stuff is wanting references). But I was asking Ten Pound Hammer about their objections. LouScheffer (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it isn't *my* objection. As a FAR moderator I have to segment the article and list the issues that were put on the agenda but that is not more than moderating paperwork and not to be taken as an endorsement of the complaints YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist I've gotten my hands on the book that I think can bring this back to status but the page itself will take some time. Have we ever had an article thrice go through FA successfully? It would be interesting to try on this later. Timothymarskell (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as FA This is a very difficult topic, with tentacles into almost all branches of science, and many speculative explanations, all roughly equally valid according to the meager facts available. While the article can surely be improved, it can't be much shorter without dropping seriously discussed alternatives, and cannot be much longer without exceeding the mandate of an encyclopedia article. It's already perhaps the best article-length summary of the Fermi paradox so far (though I'd be happy to see other candidates) so we should fix what can be fixed (references in particular) and keep it as FA. LouScheffer (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, agree with FA criteria concern identified above by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) of sourcing, unsourced chunks throughout article, multiple issues unaddressed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.