Dyson sphere was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
"This type would avoid the need for artificial gravity technology, in contrast to the AU-scale Dyson Spheres. In fact, we show that parameters can be found to build Dyson Spheres suitable —temperature- and gravity-wise— for human habitation. This type would be much harder to detect." from: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-idea-dyson-sphere.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.62.159 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was promoted back in 2007 upon its second nomination. Even then, the promotion was controversial because of perceived issues with the sourcing. Looking at this today, there are major sourcing issues, some of which I have highlighted by adding maintenance templates to the article. Large portions of the article are unsourced. Several references are to sources that do not appear to be reliable. Spotchecking sources reveals both material failing verification and plagiarism. The article consists to a large extent of WP:Original research by way of editorial WP:Synthesis, where sources are used to verify the underlying factual basis for the assertions made in the article (rather than verifying the assertions themselves) in a manner one would expect to find in an essay, rather than being cited in context and on topicasWP:NOR mandates. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In its present form this article falls far short of GA requirements. Much of the original research and synthesis, especially in the Variants section, is unlikely to be sourceable to anything reliable, and I'd suggest stripping all that out as a first step. Much of the rest (scientific rather than fictional/speculative) looks better, and there might just possibly be enough of that to save the article. Before things are removed wholesale - does anyone think the tagged material is at all sourceable? MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some parts almost certainly are sourceable. I expect that the article would fail the broadness criterion if all the dubious material were removed (in fact, it might already do so). I agree that removing it would be a good first step, but I don't think it would be sufficient to meet the criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More specifically, only part of the transcribed discussion appears to be archived in a manner that is retrievable by following the links, and that excludes any comments by Freeman Dyson, who according to the schedule (still visible) was a participant in the discussion. I suspect that there may be other, more complete versions of the discussion on the internet, and also that there are probably periodical sources documenting the point being made (that Dyson regretted becoming associated with the concept of the "Dyson sphere"). But I don't have the expertise to locate them easily. Can anyone else help to replace the existing citation with something durable and reliable? P Aculeius (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
