Talk:Peter Jalowiczor

Peter Jalowiczor is currently a Physics and astronomy good article nominee. Nominated by Nerd1a4i (talk) at 22:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 14 April 2017 by reviewer SwisterTwister (talk · contribs).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Astronomy

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Gas worker

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

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)[reply]

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]