Wikipedia:Peer review/History of science/archive1
This was a former collaboration of the week article, during which it improved markedly. Still, lots of errors remained, and I've been working on it for the past two weeks to get it to an improved state (revising text parts, adding references and so on). I still think the article is a bit long and that there's room for improvement. I would like comments on where to shorten the article and on general ways of improving the thing and get it to the featured article status. -- Cugel 08:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with shortening the article. Our recent FAC, History of Russia, was close to 100kb. I doubt that historyu of science is a less deserving subject. The old '32kb rule' is no more. This article has good lead, ok references (it could use more) and pics. What it needs is more info - for example, history of physics is several times larget then that of other sciences. I'd recommend expanding all sections to similar lenght. The history section is nice, although one may consider merging the tiny one-two sentence sectons, like Maya with Inca (although I'd prefer their expansion). The double sections (like Sociology and Anthropology) should be split into separate ones, some are completly missing (mathematics, ecology, political science, economics, linguistics and communication to name a few). Majority of see also should be incorportated into the article, and I would say that history of mathematic and philosophy deserve their own subsections in this article (technology can be left out, but I wouldn't mind seeing it mentioned as well). Nonetheless, a great article, I will try to help with the development and eagerly anticipate it reaching FAC in a few weeks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Piotr, I have to say History of Russia turned out great. I've been combining a few of the sections that you're suggesting should be separated :-) -- but I agree with you that the article does deserve expansion because some areas (recent ones especially) are missing (economy, anyone?). I'll try and get this one in better shape, it took me some time to get rid of excess fluff. -- 130.89.201.68 19:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's too list-like (i.e. "A discovered X in 1650. B discovered Y in 1660. C discovered Z in 1670"). Needs to do a better job at capturing developments. Fredrik | talk 14:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh my. Much of this article looks more like history of science by discipline. I'd expect an article on this subject to concentrate on the history of the development of science and scientific thought. I'd also expect to see info about the relationship between science and religion and why the current schism between those two happened. --mav 02:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)