Talk:Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Amkgp in topic Did you know nomination

Did you know nomination

edit
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 Amkgp (talk12:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Created by Footlessmouse (talk). Self-nominated at 00:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC).Reply

  Interesting book, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. - The hook would be great for me, but I'm afraid that our "general readership" will not know (nor read per link) what Either/Or is, nor quantum mechanics (which would need a link if mentioned). I suggest you try something more basic, perhaps mention scientists, or topics. Keep in mind that the title doesn't even give away that it's about physics. Perhaps the full title would be an option? - In the article, I think the table could be improved in two respects: 1) explain the chapter numbers above it and shorten the headers in the table, 2) combine the "equal" entries in the left column, - compare this table. - Also waiting for qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Gerda! I have corrected the table, will provide QPQ later today, and will think more on further ALTs that are a little more generally appealing, here is one for now that changes very little but addresses some of your points. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Gerda, what do you think of these alts? Thank you for the review, please let me know if there is anything else that can be improved in the article, I believe I have addressed your concerns above. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
The table looks great! Thank you for trying hard with the hook. We'll get there, but so far still some criticism, some very minor: I believe that the initial comma is correct but is in the way of the flow. I like: "physicist", "argues", "philosophy", "formulated". I don't like: the title piped, "book" repeated, "book" not mentioned for the first book. I believe that "Kepler to Einstein" would be the shortest way to establish context. So my take would be:
ALT4: ... that in his book Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein, George Holton argued that Niels Bohr was influenced by philosophy from Either/Or when he formulated the concept of complementarity?
Go ahead, trim, play with the elements, and write a review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Gerda, this sounds good to me, but the only way I can find to bring it under 200 characters is to drop the subtitle. I tried playing with it in other ways, but this is the best I can do: Footlessmouse (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
ALT5: ... that in his book Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, George Holton argued that Niels Bohr was influenced by philosophy from Either/Or when he formulated the concept of complementarity?
You are right about the length, I didn't even check.
ALT6: ... that in his book Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein, George Holton argued that philosophy from Either/Or influenced Niels Bohr's concept of complementarity?
  ALT5 and ALT6 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
a minor extra: I don't believe in template dynamic list, - it could be used for almost every article on Wikipedia ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply