Talk:Introduction to general relativity/Archive 2

message: I have now added all suitable images I could think of, including a lead image, and all statements should now be properly referenced. Regarding the references, I have given preference to texts accessible to the target audience of this article (namely readers who are interested in an introduction, but do not have sufficient background knowledge to read the technical literature).  As far as I can tell, the article should now meet all the FA criteria.  For anyone who might have this on their watchlist, I'd appreciate any polishing, feedback etc. - my plan is to let the article sit for a few days while polishing it a bit, and then (unless there turns out to be need for major revisions) propose it as an FAC. Markus Poessel 15:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback on new version of article wanted

message: See draft page at User:Madcoverboy/Sandbox/General relativity for example of the merged article at General relativity. Madcoverboy 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's have the discussion for both candidates on the talk page of general relativity and not on two talk pages at once. --Markus Poessel 19:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I'm having trouble finding reliable sources on this. They do exist cos I read them (a few years ago)! But they easily get swamped by the crackpot websites holding this up as a bad thing. Do the main books say anything on this? Carcharoth 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tell a lie. I found something reasonably objective here. Have a read of the whole page and let me know what you think. Carcharoth 22:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly less objective (see the URL title and their main page) is this one. But the previous one I mentioned above is a fascinating look at some of the history. Carcharoth 22:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mind if I come back to this later?  Too many balls in the air at the moment. --Markus Poessel 06:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, but do read the first source I provided in full. The history of science is a fascinating topic, and too often skipped in science textbooks. Of course, the real home for this is History of general relativity, but the mention of the experiment here should be as accurate as possible. Carcharoth 10:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of the results of Eddington's eclipse experiments 

message: I am rereading the article, at the request of Willow, and I have found to my dismay that it is growing increasingly technical (and getting longer). In the previous incarnation of the article, I did not feel that I had to work as hard to read it. Please consider us lay readers who come to the article knowing very little or nothing. Remember that every time a new term is introduced and used, we have to keep reminding ourselves of what it means when we see it again (if we even bother to do that!). Too many new terms makes an article impenetrable. Also, please remember to explain rather than state conclusions (they may seem obvious to you!). Awadewit | talk 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give specific examples of what has dismayed you? Personally, I'm still enjoying the plethora of articles on general relativity. It is the first article I have come across that has spun out its "external links/further reading" section, in the form of General relativity resources. Amazing. Carcharoth 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore that, I've just found your "internal comments", my responses to which range from "good point" to "the article can't explain everything"! :-) I'm educated to science undergraduate level, so maybe my take on this is less relevant than yours. It is difficult to gauge the response of an arts graduate until you force them to read the article. Carcharoth 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am planning on going through the rest of the article later today (Willow asked me to). I liked the "resources" section, too. Please note that I am not against the plethora of articles on general relativity - I am very much for them. I just want one to be accessible; something entitled "Introduction to general relativity" seems like the perfect choice. I also thought that the article was surprisingly accessible back when I peer-reviewed it, but I think that in the efforts to add accuracy, that accessibility has been lost a bit. There are no "accurate" explanations of general relativity without math, so I don't think that "accuracy" is really the standard the article should be set to achieve, precisely. Remember how the first atomic model everyone learns in the planetary model and then the shell model (apparently the shell model is wrong, but I never got beyond that). I think that the editors should think in terms of those kinds of heuristics: helpful, but, in the end, not really correct. It is incredibly difficult to place yourself in the shoes of a reader so differently-informed than yourself. I have trouble with that all of the time. That's why it's nice that so many science-y people read the literature articles I edit. They can say, "no one knows what subjectivity means!" :) Awadewit | talk 00:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Awadewit, I'm of course dismayed to find that the article has lost in accessibility.  I had hoped that I might be able to strike a balance between addressing the detailed suggestions made in FAC and still keeping it accessible (e.g., I thought that Einstein's equation, with the nice way in which the constants parallel the theory's development, might actually be a nice addition).  Please be sure to mention this at the FAC if you haven't already, in response to calls for even further math to be added to the article (may be you have already done so; I'll be heading over there in a minute).  If you have concrete suggestions of how to restore accessibility with the least amount of loss of comment-addressing additions, please tell. --Markus Poessel 06:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I admit to being a bit gobsmacked at the moment.  As far as I can see, a number of the changes made since yesterday have made parts of the article markedly worse.  I don't know if I have the time to do it all today, but I'll try to repair things by and by, and try to address your internal comments at the same time.  After that, I would be interested in hearing your opinion no the current state of the article once more (if you can stand reading it yet another time. --Markus Poessel 08:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize. How about this time around I summarize what I learned from reading the article for you? This will take me longer but might, in the end, be more useful to you. You can find out what I missed and what I absorbed. Let me know. (I shudder to think what your opinion of me will be, though, after you read it.) Awadewit | talk 11:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that will be useful information indeed, but if you don't mind, I think we should wait a bit.  My hope is that, instead of the current fluid state (in which I feel I am putting out one brush fire while two more spring up elsewhere), I will eventually reach consensus with Willow on the changes made so far, and on some further changes (a general streamlining of the article included) that I think are necessary; then would be a good time for the summarizing experiment.  In the meantime, I would appreciate if you could mediate on issues of accessibility - there are now some very specific cases where I claim one way is more accessible, while Willow favours another; your input would be greatly appreciated. --Markus Poessel 09:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just let me know when the storm has quieted enough. Awadewit | talk 10:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical level

message: :*General remark: I think that many of the changes have made matters harder to understand.  You cannot just insert something like "Fictitious forces are always proportional to the inertial mass on which they act; thus, an object in a gravitational field should feel a force proportional to its inertial mass, as is observed and embodied in Newton's law of gravitation." and expect the average reader to say "Oh, yes, right-ho, that's what it is."  At least one reviewer has now withdrawn support due to what he calls a marked decrease in the quality of the writing.  Could we please, please change gears here - first propose and discuss changes on this talk page, and only afterwards insert them into the article? --Markus Poessel 07:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's do that.  Again, I'm no expert, as I conceded, but I do have some sense of what it's  like to be a newbie.  I've sincerely tried to clarify the article and make it more informative for the beginning student, although my skills sometimes fall short.  I'm really, really sorry if you think that I've just ruined the article. :( Willow 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Also, could we please slow down a bit?  There are now enough points of discussion on the table without the introduction of additional changes every new day; could we please first clear up the changes we have now, checking that all comments have been addressed, before further widening the field of issues that need to be discussed? --Markus Poessel 08:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Striking out sentences and issues that have been addressed would help us all, I think. Awadewit | talk 09:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *A good point, too.  I've started; hope to have occasion to make progress on this soon. --89.50.45.2 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Still thinking about the best way of doing this.  Perhaps we could go section by section?  For each section, we could discuss changes, refer back to the comments already exchanged, hopefully find consensus, and then move on to the next section.  I find that one of the more frustrating aspects of this process is constantly having to keep track of all the changes happening, commenting on some and finding that others have happened while I turned my back.  That way, we would proceed step by step, and minimize the risk of missing anything. --Markus Poessel 09:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *After having taught writing for a few years now, I can offer one tiny suggestion. It might be useful for the editors to make a list of the three or five most important concepts that they want the reader to know after reading this article. It is easier to make editing decisions when you all know what the goal is: communicate 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Everything in the article should then work in some way towards explaining those five concepts. Also, realize that five major concepts will be stretching it for most people. Typical essays have one thesis, or one idea that they want to communicate, even if they have subpoints; essays usually return to the same argument over and over again (think five-paragraph essay style, that tired but useful model). (Please do not respond and say "we are communicating only one idea, "general relativity""; think of the parts that make up this explanation.) I hope this helps a little. Awadewit | talk 10:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hm.  I don't know.  My impression is that, at this point, it should still work to "argue locally" about changes, without introducing the additional structure of the most important concepts.  I also think that the most pressing problem at the moment is how many things are going on in parallel; going section by section would, in my opinion, make the process much, much more efficient and less stressful for all concerned. --89.50.45.2 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Just a suggestion. It often helps students (and myself) to articulate the essence of an essay or argument in a few sentences; it focuses the writing process and the revision process. But perhaps that works better when only a single author is involved. :) Awadewit | talk 11:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Damn, you're just too fast.  I was just about to fix the mistake; once I'd done it, I got an "edit conflict".  So yes, the above comment was by me. --Markus Poessel 11:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to make this work