Talk:Peter Jalowiczor

Gas worker

What is that? Maybe add a wikilink? Looking good, btw! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! --Nerd1a4i (talk)

Edits to research section

I have made a rather significant series of edits to the research section, and I'd like to explain my rationale. (Since I voted to redirect the article in the ongoing AfD, I don't want to create the appearance of impropriety.) First, as a matter of organization, it makes sense to merge the three subsections and to discuss his work chronologically. Second, BLPs do not typically give citation counts for each paper unless the citation count itself is noteworthy for some reason (e.g., if it was the most-cited paper in the past decade); citation counts will also become out-of-date when the work is cited again. Moreover, I think that according undue attention to citation counts, particularly for co-authored papers, creates an appearance that the article is straining to create notability. Third, I believe that the g-index was miscalculated; since he has been in the author list of two papers, he can't have a g-index higher than 2 (but please correct me if I am wrong). Fourth, on a related note, citation metrics consider papers on which a person was an author, not those in which a person was mentioned in acknowledgments. Finally, I removed an erroneous link to a rock band. In the course of making these changes, I did remove some sources, but they were duplicative of other sources in the article.

If someone disagrees with these changes, I would be happy to discuss them, but I think that they streamline the research section. Best, Astro4686 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree rather wholeheartedly with your edits to Peter Jalowiczor. First, having one big block of text makes it harder to read - it looked better on the page to have the multiple sections. Second, the page was organized in chronological order, with the discovery and work on each project in a section, and then the final section talking about the specifics of the papers themselves, which I thought made it a little more logical. As for the citation count, I can remove those, but that was to include his h-index and g-index (I don't know whether or not the g-index was miscalculated; someone in the -help IRC channel calculated it for me; however, I don't believe it is two), which may also be worthy of being removed; that's up for debate. Removing the sources seems an unhelpful edit as I used the sources for specific details the way it was originally set up, and they did not duplicate each other. I thank you for taking an interest in the article, but in this case I ask that you rollback the edit (or I can rollback myself) and in that case we can then move on and remove citation counts or fix the link or what have you as is deemed necessary. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply. Hi@Nerd1a4i: No hard feelings here -- let's discuss this. Maybe rather than one big edit by me, it would be better to discuss my concerns issue-by-issue. (1) Regarding citations, if you look at other articles which mention someone's published work, they don't give a paper-by-paper count of citations. Moreover, with the exception of the h-index, all of the information given in "Published work" is duplicative of information given in the references at the end. For example, if someone wants to know the title of the paper or the author list, they can look at the footnotes. Moreover, both of those papers were discussed in the previous two subsections. I think that it interrupts the flow of the text to have a third section that mostly repeats the footnotes. (2) As for the information being in chronological order, it is currently written in reverse chronological order. The exoplanet research is more recent, and it is listed first. Generally, for biographies, the oldest information comes first, with the most recent information coming last.

What do you think about (1) and (2)? Are they changes that you might agree to in some amended form? I have comments about some of the sources, too, but that can wait for later. Best, Astro4686 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply. Hello @Astro4686:; thanks for your more extensive reasoning. Let me start with (2) - I would be very willing to change the order of the two sections, however, I listed it in that order as the more notable accomplishment was the discovery of the exoplanets and I thought that might be how it should be ordered; if you don't think so, I can switch that. As for (1), I'm not quite sure that's the case - instead of breaking up the text, I find it a smoother transition into his general research and the published work that resulted from it, plus it includes extra information not necessarily included in the footnotes. Thanks again for your discussion! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Jalowiczor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 03:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This article has a large number of sections without citations. In particular, the "Awards and honors," "Finding stars and brown dwarves," and the history of the Rotherham Football FC name. I recommend these be fixed before the article can become a good article. As this is my first GA review, I will be asking for a second opinion to get a more experienced user to weigh in. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

After just five minutes of glancing over the article, I see other problems: in-line links instead of Wikilinks and/or references, a messed-up illustration text, and some of the work credited exclusively to Jalowiczor appears to have been a collaborative effort (at least the publication was by multiple authors).

My experience with nominating and reviewing articles for GA is limited, but I suggest waiting for a few days for editors to address the criticisms so far. If there is quick progress, the supplied references need some checking and the article still needs to be reviewed in detail regarding the other five criteria. If, however, there s no hope of implementing all improvements within a timeframe of about a week, you can fail the GA nomination and suggest a re-nomination after improvements in the future.

Note: I'm leaving status on Request for 2nd Opinion so that even more experienced reviewers may comment. Rontombontom (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rontombontom and Balon Greyjoy: I personally would put the article on hold for 7 days to give the nominator the opportunity to address the current issues. If the issues are resolved, then continue with a full review, otherwise I would fail it.--Dom497 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Dom. I updated the GAN status and added a GA notification to the nominator's talk page. He didn't receive one when the review page was created, probably because it was automatically set to second opinion status. I think that confused the bot. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer, Rontombontom, and Balon Greyjoy: It seems this article has been edited a bit since I nominated! Please give me some time to remedy these issues; thanks! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rontombontom and Balon Greyjoy: Hello, I believe I have remedied the issues you mentioned - would you mind taking a second look? --Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy is the primary reviewer who has to pass/fail it, but I glanced over it (without checking the references). I think you indeed dealt with most of the issues, and I think the ones I still see can be dealt with easily. I edited the most minor of these myself (in line with WP:BOLD, here are the others:

• For better readability, it's good to separate section and sub-section headers with some short intro text. In this case, ones would be needed below the Research and Writing headers.
• The intro is supposed to be a summary of the article body, so the article should discuss whatever is mentioned there. In this case, the as yet unpublished 2017 discoveries are missing from the article.
• There is still some unsourced content: the as yet unpublished 2017 discoveries, the PGCE award, and the h-index.

That's all from me. Rontombontom (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rontombontom and Balon Greyjoy: I have again edited as per Rontombontom's most recent set of comments - hopefully it's now up to snuff! Unfortunately, a lot of the unsourced material needed to be removed, as I could find absolutely no sources for it. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Hey, figured you might you forgotten about this. Kees08 (Talk) 07:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I did, thanks for keeping me honest! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I am taking another look at this review, and should hopefully finish it over the course of this weekend. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Lead

   Short intro, but covers the astronomy topics of the article. I would recommend expanding the sentence on comets to include an overview of his discoveries. Additionally, while the main focus of the article is his amateur astronomy, there is also a significant section on the football club he founded, but there is no mention of that in the lead. Also, there are several red-links in the infobox.

   Education and career

   Recommend expanding this section to include more details of both his education and career. As his education included astophysical work, it would be relevant to discuss his topics of academyic research and thesis. Are there any more details about his career in education? Also, his membership in an astronomical society would be more relevant under the "Research" section, as he is an amateur astronomer.

   Finding exoplanets

   "The survey team began uploading its measurements on a public server starting in 2005. Jalowiczor started his research in 2007." Consider possibly combining this into a single sentence. I would recommend something along the lines of "Jalowiczor began his research in 2007, using data on a public server from the survey team."

   "His work used only two home computers; he has been cited in multiple sources as not owning a telescope" These two fragments read awkwardly. I think you might have more luck combining them into a single setence without the semicolon.

   I would recommend removing the quote, but incoporating his submission of 40 potential exoplanets into the previous paragraph.

   "The University of California confirmed the first discovery: HD177830c on Christmas Eve, 2009 with the next three confirmed later in September, 2010 in the collaborative academic paper published." Your sentence uses a colon, but does not list the individual planets after the first discovery. Additionally, the dates for discovery should be standardized (December 2009 vs. Christmas Eve 2009). The sentence also mentions a paper, but does not go into detail about the paper itself.

   Two of the discovered planets are red-linked.

   Analysis of the delta effect

   This section should be expanded to include the particulars of the comet research. In particular, it should provide an overview of his analysis. The formula that he confirmed should be included and explained.

   Published work

   As discussed on the talk page, the individual sentences for the number of citations, as well as the h-index, are not a common fact listed on other academics' pages. That information seems unecessary when discussing Jalowiczor's work.

   Football club

   This section is primarily about the team itself, and has little to do with Jalowiczor. I would recommend making this section into one about his personal life, and mentioning his role in founding the team, and receiving an award for it.

   Writing

   The "Forgotten Heroes" section has extraneous information about the Polish service members that have settled in the area. Consider combining the information about the two books that Jalowiczor has published into a single section/paragraph.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead section

   As mentioned above, the lead should provide a more comprehensive discussion of the body of the article. The infobox should not contain red links.

   Layout

   No concern.

   Words to watch

   The fragment of "he has been cited in multiple sources as not owning a telescope" is an unsupported attribution. As mentioned above, this could be combined into a single sentence with its preceding clause.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The Payne L. (1998) lists the page as "??" This should be corrected to reflect the page number.

   The Korea Times article (http://www.koreaittimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=12377) should contain more information about the article, including the author's name.

   The citation of the article "Polish Millers Mark Remarkable Decade" should include author information.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   No concern.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No concern.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   According to [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Peter+Jalowiczor&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 earwig[, there is a low likelihood of plagiarism. Most of the similar content is either the quote from Jalowiczor or proper na,es

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The primary focus of the article is on Jalowiczor's amatuer astronomy accomplishments, and should include more information on his education and academic career. Additionally, his involvement in a local amateur football club does not appear to meet inclusion criteria, based on WP:NOTABILITY. Consider removing the majority of the football section, and mentioning his involvement in a local club in a personal life section.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Both of the sections on the football club and "Forgotten Heroes" do not stay focused on the topic of the article, as the bulk of the information is about the club and the veterans, respectively.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No concern.

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   The page does not change regularly. As discussed above, there is a discussion on the talk page about the inclusion of citation numbers for the papers.

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No concern.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The dates in the photo captions should be standardized between different photos.

   Is there a figure that demonstrates planets eclipsing a star instead of a binary star system? The figure is informative, but not relevant to Jalowiczor's work.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I have completed my review. I would recommend some major changes to sections of this article. I will be available for the entire weekend if you would like any clarification on my comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: FYI I have placed the review on hold on the talk page for you; the nominator will get a ping and know to respond to comments. Kees08 (Talk) 07:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to put it on hold (rookie move). Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd1a4i: just a reminder about this review. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Thank you for pinging me! I've been busy. If you could start my week of time from this point, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks again! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good; I will wait to see your changes! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

While there have been some changes made, such as removing extraneous information about the football club, this article still requires some work before getting up to Good Article status. The education section should be expanded significantly to explain more of Jalowiczor's life, and the research section still requires work to make it more readable. The writing section should also be further abbreviated, as it contains extraneous information not related to Jalowiczor. I would recommend working on getting more details of his life, and getting this article copyedited or peer reviewed. I will be submitted a failed GA for this article, but encourage you to try again in the future. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)