Talk:British scientist Stephen Hawking dies aged 76

Review of revision 4390219 [Not ready]

Revision 4390219 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: there is only one source which quotes the statement, but as it is the key focal event, it would be nice to include a second source which confirms the statement text NPOV: Not ready: Paragraph three and the first sentence of paragraph five are opinionated and need to be reworded and/or attributed. Style: Not ready: Verb tense is inconsistent throughout the story. Comments by reviewer: (Paragraph six is from interview with new york times which may also need to be mentioned.) For paragraph number three Hawking studied at Oxford and Cambridge Universities and was in 1979 awarded a post once held by Isaac Newton, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. His scientific work focused on fundamental aspects of the universe and space, such as gravity and black holes ( it is not clear why we call them fundamental, I think this is an opinion. this part needs to be reworded ) The heat emitted from black holes is (has been) called Hawking radiation after him. He was also famous for placing bets with other researchers about who would disprove whose theories (this is an interesting claim. can it be attributed? who called him famous for that?), one of which (only one?) he lost to John Preskill (could not find this in sources), over whether black holes can permanently remove information from the universe (so what? who of them turned out to be right?). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4390219 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: there is only one source which quotes the statement, but as it is the key focal event, it would be nice to include a second source which confirms the statement text NPOV: Not ready: Paragraph three and the first sentence of paragraph five are opinionated and need to be reworded and/or attributed. Style: Not ready: Verb tense is inconsistent throughout the story. Comments by reviewer: (Paragraph six is from interview with new york times which may also need to be mentioned.) For paragraph number three Hawking studied at Oxford and Cambridge Universities and was in 1979 awarded a post once held by Isaac Newton, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. His scientific work focused on fundamental aspects of the universe and space, such as gravity and black holes ( it is not clear why we call them fundamental, I think this is an opinion. this part needs to be reworded ) The heat emitted from black holes is (has been) called Hawking radiation after him. He was also famous for placing bets with other researchers about who would disprove whose theories (this is an interesting claim. can it be attributed? who called him famous for that?), one of which (only one?) he lost to John Preskill (could not find this in sources), over whether black holes can permanently remove information from the universe (so what? who of them turned out to be right?). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

"Is called" and "has been called" mean two different things. "Is called" is another way of saying "that's its name," that this radiation is regularly and habitually called "Hawking radiation" right now. "Has been called" means that it is only sometimes called "Hawking radiation" and that name is either one of two or more important names or that the term "Hawking radiation" has fallen out of use. A brief web search for "Hawking Radiation" indicates that the term is indeed still in use.

I do not feel that "gravity is a fundamental aspect of the universe" needs to be sourced in the article because it is common knowledge. Here are three articles that refer to gravity as a fundamental part of the universe: How Stuff Works Cornell University Laboratory West Texas A&M University

The John Preskill bet is in the USA Today source. Hit CTRL-F "Preskill" and it will take you right there. I just this minute found out that there's a Wikipedia article, on this bet. I have added text to address your other issues, including a second source for the statement from Hawking's family. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Confirm Preskill is in the source. I may have typoed it. Sorry. ( Fixed)

Re "fundamental aspects" I'm not sure what to do with it, thanks for sharing your view. I'll leave it to someone else to check (which may or may not be me depending on the timing of my other work today) ( Doing...)

Confirm the statement is now supported by two independent sources. ( Fixed)

Couldn't fully grasp the 'is called' idea you just said. If the past tense becomes another idiom, 'was named in his honor' construct could be used. ( Not done Fixed)

Re the Preskill sentence - thanks for adding 'Hawking conceded that they probably cannot.'. (( Fixed)

Re the Preskill sentence - it is supported by only one source. I'd attribute it: add 'According to US News', until or unless it is verifiable somewhere else. ( Not done Fixed)

Paragraph six does have a mention of new york times, This is good thank you. ( Fixed)

I've picked on the 'not done' items and edited the article. --Gryllida (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4390829 [Passed]

Revision 4390829 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The "fundamental aspects" passage was quite awkward. I would have no problem calling gravity fundamental, but black holes are a boundary case (singularity, indeed), and putting them and gravity together there makes it sound like the reader is being told to consider the two of equal fundamentality. The sources don't really support, afaics, gravity as a major part of his work independent of black holes. Dropping gravity from that passage avoids the comparison between the two (a solution that required a great deal of reviewer time and effort to devise). Just because it's grammatically possible in English to mix tenses in complicated ways doesn't make it good writing style generally, nor good news writing style in particular. If necessary I'd have said "was not award a Nobel Prize in his lifetime", but the qualification ("in his lifetime") would be minor and its omission probably forgivable even if Nobel Prizes were award posthumously, which I gather they have not been. It should be instinctive never to put in things like "Possibly the best-known scientist in the world". That's plainly subjective assessment and speculation, and one might or might not agree with it but a massive part of Wikinews neutrality is to entirely sidestep all such questions by simply not doing that. I wish one of the sources said how much of his life he spend in a wheelchair; but one source does at least say "decades". The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4390829 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The "fundamental aspects" passage was quite awkward. I would have no problem calling gravity fundamental, but black holes are a boundary case (singularity, indeed), and putting them and gravity together there makes it sound like the reader is being told to consider the two of equal fundamentality. The sources don't really support, afaics, gravity as a major part of his work independent of black holes. Dropping gravity from that passage avoids the comparison between the two (a solution that required a great deal of reviewer time and effort to devise). Just because it's grammatically possible in English to mix tenses in complicated ways doesn't make it good writing style generally, nor good news writing style in particular. If necessary I'd have said "was not award a Nobel Prize in his lifetime", but the qualification ("in his lifetime") would be minor and its omission probably forgivable even if Nobel Prizes were award posthumously, which I gather they have not been. It should be instinctive never to put in things like "Possibly the best-known scientist in the world". That's plainly subjective assessment and speculation, and one might or might not agree with it but a massive part of Wikinews neutrality is to entirely sidestep all such questions by simply not doing that. I wish one of the sources said how much of his life he spend in a wheelchair; but one source does at least say "decades". The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.