Talk:The Meaning of Relativity

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice Work!.

Gazal world (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Photo of Einstein in 1921

• ... that the 1921 book The Meaning of Relativity represents Albert Einstein's (pictured) only attempt to provide a widely-accessible, yet comprehensive overview of the theory of general relativity? Source: "This one is based on Einstein’s ‘The Meaning of Relativity’, the only book he wrote providing a widely accessible but comprehensive overview of both the mathematical techniques and the physical significance of his general theory." (Review by Gerald Gilmore at T&F online)

• Reviewed: Exempt with less than 5 credits
• Comment: Am quick to respond and am willing to find alt hooks as needed.

Created by Footlessmouse (talk). Self-nominated at 02:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC).

• New enough (moved to mainspace Nov 26), long enough (4246B of prose, not counting the lists of publications), and adequately sourced (for the prose; I don't think it's reasonable to require footnotes for the lists of publications as that information is more or less self-sourcing). DYK check shows that this is the nominator's third nomination, so no QPQ needed. Although Earwig's confidence numbers were on the high side, the only copying it found were marked quotes, titles, and set phrases; no copyvio found. I'm not sure the photo of Einstein really adds much to the hook, but it's within rules as a properly labeled public domain image. The hook itself is interesting, short enough, and adequately sourced in the article but there we do run into copying issues: the hook phrasing "...a widely-accessible, yet comprehensive overview of..." differs only in a single linking word from the source listed in the nomination, too closely paraphrased for my taste. It should either be a quote (and marked as a quote both in the hook and with sourcing in the article), or be more completely rewritten to not copy the sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, give me a few minutes to think it over. This gave me pause when I wrote it, but I thought that the phrase might be common enough to not need it. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• @David Eppstein: This keeps it pretty much the same, but I believe it avoids the copyvio issues: Footlessmouse (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that the 1921 book The Meaning of Relativity represents Albert Einstein's (pictured) only attempt to provide an overview of general relativity that was both comprehensive and accessible to non-specialists? Source: Ibid
  • Ok, good to go with ALT1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Note I have completed a review Template:Did you know nominations/Neanthes arenaceodentata that can be used as a QPQ for this entry as I will have five credits by the time it is promoted. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Reference number 1.

Reference number 1: Rowe, David E. (March 2019). "Hanoch Gutfreund; Jürgen Renn. The Formative Years of Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein's Princeton Lectures . xiv + 415 pp., figs., index. Princeton, N.J./Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2017. $35 (cloth). ISBN 9781400888689.Galina Weinstein. Einstein's Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity . Second edition. xv + 642 pp., bibl., notes, index. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017. £80.99 (cloth). ISBN 9781443895125". Isis. 110 (1): 201–204. doi:10.1086/702513. ISSN 0021-1753.

Dr. Galina Weinstein has written a reply to the editor of Isis about the above paper. Here: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/719812 and: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/719813.

She writes in her reply that from her perspective the above paper of David Rowe uses ableist language against her and her book. Time Lord 65 (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)