Talk:Peter van de Kamp

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter van de Kamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110907001551/http://www.weblore.com/richard/barnard's_star.htm to http://weblore.com/richard/barnard's_star.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter van de Kamp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Deborah.artemis (talk · contribs) 12:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RadioactOlive (talk · contribs) 00:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for submitting the article; getting started on the review. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 00:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The citations in the lede are unnecessary per MOS:LEADCITE. I went ahead and removed them. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 00:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   Prose and spelling looks fine. A few grammar errors, mostly around commas, that I went ahead and fixed, but nothing major. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 02:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   Looks good for MOS:LEAD. Might be worth rewriting the first two sentences per MOS:NAME - something like "Peter van de Kamp (Dutch: Piet van de Kamp) was a..." - but MOS:NAME isn't a GA criteria. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 03:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   MOS:LAYOUT advises against having images that spill over sections, as the Barnard's Star image currently does. Moreover, MOS:IMAGES advises against putting images on the left unless necessary; it does not seem to me to be necessary here. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 03:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   Though to be clear: MOS:IMAGES isn't a GA criteria, that last part is just general advice that does not need to be complied with for GA. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 03:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   Some use of "however" and "claimed." But they seem appropriate in context. The use of "extensive" and "lengthy" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Early Life section is arguably MOS:PUFFERY and should be either quantified or removed. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 03:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   MOS:FICTION and MOS:LIST don't apply here. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 03:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No copyvios, holding the other parts of this criteria until I can read through and spotcheck. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 00:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   Reference section looks fine. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 04:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   The Early Life section seems short on citations. Sources [1] and [3] point to pieces about van de Kamp's brother and one of his students respectively, which is fine, but means all of the information in that section is dependent only on source [2]. This means that the first paragraph is unsupported (aside from the statement about his brother), and the second largely is as well (since the citation is only halfway through it, it cannot support the content after it.) Note that the GA criteria require that "[a]ll content that could reasonably be challenged ... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph." radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 04:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   The Barnard's Star affair section is almost all primary sources, which is not disqualifying but not ideal. Source [14] is an arXiv preprint; preprints are generally unreliable; find another source for this (or the actual paper, if it's been published.) The fourth paragraph of this section is uncited; this needs to be fixed. If you can, find some secondary sourcing for the section. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 06:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   The first sentence of the other work section is unsourced and probably not particularly worth stating - that a career in science led to dozens of papers, or thousands of hours, of astrometry is really just not that unusual. It should probably be removed; if not, it must be sourced.radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 06:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   The last section is mostly fine, but a source is needed for his receipt of of the Rittenhouse Medal. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 07:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

   Probably fine on OR, though (again) a secondary source to cut down on WP:SYNTH would be preferred. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 07:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Looks fine for both, based on whats mentioned in the biographical sources. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 07:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Looks good on this front. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 07:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No significant work in the past month, looks to be stable. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 00:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

2. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images look good, all tagged, captions seem reasonable. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 00:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Issues for hold

I'm placing the review on hold to give you a chance to solve the issues noted above. Specifically, the MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:PUFFERY, and citation/sourcing issues need to be resolved. Ideally, the MOS:IMAGES, MOS:NAME, and secondary sourcing issues should also be fixed, but I won't hold up the nomination on their behalf. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 07:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, RadioactOlive. Let me know if I can help with anything. Deborah.artemis (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Radio. I've started trimming some superlatives and moved an image that laid out poorly. Is there specific puffery? I think the planet claim issue is treated fairly. Deborah.artemis (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

As noted above, the puffery is quite small - just that the use of "extensive" and "lengthy" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Early Life section should either be quantified (how extensive, how lengthy) or removed. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 19:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The layout follows MOS unless you feel the planet section is inserted in the middle in an odd way. Deborah.artemis (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, the only layout issue was the image, which looks fine to me now (MOS:IMAGES is its own, larger, MOS, but there's also a section on images in MOS:LAYOUT). radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 19:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I will get back to the citation concerns over the next couple of days. Thanks again, Radio. Deborah.artemis (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Radido, I know you said no citations necessary in lead (I tend to agree with this) but I thought it would be helpful to have something scholarly upfront. This makes some of the weaker citations later less necessary. I added one from MIT.

I'm not sure I'll find anything more for his brother. I think it's a matter of using the citation I have or foregoing the info completely. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah.artemis (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

MOS generally says that we shouldn't cite in the lede, insofar as the lede is summarizing information later in the article. (With a possible exception for controversial material, but that doesn't apply here.)

The claim that he spent thousands of hours on astrometry is still not particularly worth stating; consider that a standard work year is 2000 hours already; most people spend thousands of hours doing their job over the course of a lifetime.

As for citations, the problem wasn't and isn't citing the material about his brother, which is already adequately supported, but of the other material in the early life section, and elsewhere as mentioned above. At present, we still seem to be missing citations for:

• His parentage, and his father working in a cigar factory

Removed cigar factory. Deborah.artemis (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• His residence at the Leander McCormick Observatory being supported by the Draper Fund
• His having worked with Samuel Alfred Mitchell and Harold Alden during his time at the University of Virginia
• The ESPRESSO spectrograph finding a planet around Barnard's Star

Cited Deborah.artemis (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• That he published frequently in the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society; ideally, this would require a secondary source stating that he did this enough to be notable, not just citing his articles themselves.
• His receipt of the Rittenhouse Medal

Cited. The refs are coming out a janky right now. I will fix the errors soon. Need to track down Draper Fund and parentage. Deborah.artemis (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Additionally,

• Source [15], Lubin et al., is still only cited to an arXiv link; arXiv is not a reliable source and papers accessed there need to be cited to where they are published in journals

If you could add citations for these, and fix the issues mentioned above, we should be very close to being able to promote the article. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 17:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Radio, I have cited or removed much. The only issue seems to be parents and sibiling. Deborah.artemis (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still seeing a few other issues; namely, the lede citation; the "thousands of hours" line; missing citations for the Draper Fund, his coworkers at the University of Virginia, and frequent publication in BAAS; and Lubin et al. being cited only to arXiv. This is a good article in the informal sense; I'd hate to not be able to promote it due to a few missing citations, but I really can't promote it while it has uncited claims. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 00:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should leave it unpromoted. Deborah.artemis (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I must admit I don't understand why you are unwilling to fix those problems (none of them seem vital to the article's main subject), but very well, if you insist. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 21:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I was willing to fix them if you'd shown some patience in explaining them to me. Deborah.artemis (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

"missing citations for the Draper Fund, his coworkers at the University of Virginia, and frequent publication in BAAS; and Lubin et al. being cited only to arXiv. This is a good article in the informal sense; I'd hate to not be able to promote it due to a few missing citations" sounds like petty gatekeeping meant to discourage. Deborah.artemis (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for that impression; I had no desire to fail this article for GA, but I could not let it pass while it does not meet criteria 2b. I did not realize some part of my review needed further explanation - may I ask which part was not clear? I remain happy to explain. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 19:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)