Wikiwand AI

Talk:Leik Myrabo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
Good articleLeik Myrabo has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2026Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
September 12, 2026Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 11, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Leik Myrabo invented a laser-propelled type of spacecraft?
Current status: Good article
Close

Untitled

The article says "Professor Myrabo first had the idea for laser-propelled Lightcraft 10 years ago", but then states that " Lightcraft were limited to paper studies until about 1996". Given that that's 11 years ago, one of these statements has an error in it. My guess is that the first sentence needs to be changed to have an absolute date instead of a relative one. Anyone have more info? -Athaler 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. sorry about that.. I got that from the CNN website. According to the website, the series came out in 1998, so that means he first had the idea in 1988. I guess I will change that. If I have more time later I might come back and improve it more. Danski14(talk) 18:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Found a nice source

  1. https://ayuba.fr/pdf/popmech1995.pdf
  2. https://web.archive.org/web/20200928081508/https://ayuba.fr/pdf/popmech1995.pdf
— Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 09:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

(
)
  • This version, which was 238 words and 1486 characters...
  • this version, which is 1224 words and 8138 characters.
  • 5.14x increase.
5x expanded by Very Polite Person (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

— Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC).

  • @Very Polite Person: Long enough, new enough. QPQ done and Earwig is clean. Not a DYK issue per se (but I do see you've nominated this for GA, where this will be); the "Lightcraft research..." section needs far fewer subsections, possibly even none. The problem you have is that the hook is only really interesting if you know what lightcraft is and needs more context.--Launchballer 22:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Leik Myrabo came up with the idea behind Lightcraft while working on the Star Wars program?
ALT2: ... that Leik Myrabo envisioned satellites using microwave beams to propel and reduce drag on Lightcraft?
Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
User:Based5290, how about...
ALT3: ... that Leik Myrabo invented Lightcraft, a type of field propulsion that moves spacecraft with lasers?
Makes it more obvious, brings in the class of propulsion it is, gives more for readers, and while lightcraft were under the field propulsion page, I hadn't moved it in reverse (there's a HUGE number of pages I'll need to update downriver of the main FP page, this is one of them. Edit here to tie off the loop on Lightcraft. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person: ALT3 is slightly better, though would hide 'lightcraft' under 'a type' (a promoter will do that), and I'm not sure if a broad audience would understand 'field propulsion' (though spacecraft and lasers probably takes this over WP:DYKINT). Ctrl+Fing 'field propulsion' shows only the See also section, could you make the prose say the hook exactly?--Launchballer 03:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: - Ctrl+Fing 'field propulsion' shows only the See also section, could you make the prose say the hook exactly?
I actually got that here the other day...? This edit:
Lightcraft operating with lasers are a form of field propulsion.[10]
How's about...
ALT4: ... that Leik Myrabo invented a type of spacecraft that are propelled with lasers?
Shorter/clearer; gets the subject, gets in light/spacecraft in one, and then opens the door to all sorts of nerdy related fun stuff on the field propulsion page. "But wait... there's more!" — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I did see you had a nomination for field propulsion. I would personally run them as a double hook, but it's your call. The problem with "This edit" is that you added it to the lightcraft article; it must be in at least one bolded article.--Launchballer 16:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer:, ah, I see what I did, it's here now too on Myrabo's. I thought about doubling them up after I had that other double get into the queue, but I thought it would be better to separate them as laser-based systems like this are just one subset of the entire field propulsion domain?
If we double it up here should it be this?
ALT5: ... that Leik Myrabo invented Lightcraft, spacecraft propelled by lasers via field propulsion?
What do you think? That ALT5 would tie off everything even better, and Myrabo is one of the 'fathers' of that type of propulsion, so it'd make sense. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking more like ALT3a: ... that Leik Myrabo invented a type of field propulsion that moves spacecraft with lasers?. The new reference needs a page number.--Launchballer 04:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, I'm planning on reviewing field propulsion in the next 24 hours.--Launchballer 13:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
The field propulsion article is rock solid for this and DYK (and way easier to source). Looking more deeply through my notes, I spent more time on field propulsion (already) than I want to admit as seen here, and that's not getting into the large directories of files/data I have over the past few years...
I think we should go back to the idea of two DYKs. Keep field propulsion as-is and drop it from Myrabo.
There's competing technical and taxonomy arguments (circa 2000-2010 IIRC) that might make it harder to cleanly 1:1 source this without me rooting back into these massive sources... more time than I have time this week. The issue was that different people in different organizations and papers started to classify these things with sometimes overlapping and sometimes slightly drifting terminology. That's what led to me spending a month (at least) on the side trying to pinpoint the actual authoritative voices on it all.
Can we just go back to the original idea of the singleton DYKs? Plus then we can again deploy the gif of the solar sails deploying when FP lands on the front page. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
So...
ALT4a: ... that Leik Myrabo invented a type of spacecraft that are propelled with lasers?
^ changed piped target 'propelled with lasers' to: Beam-powered propulsion. The lightcraft and Leik Myrabo pages updated to close that loop: lightcraft and Myrabo. If I spend enough time on this I'm 99%+ sure I can make it work and without even stretching the wording, but I just don't have bandwidth at the moment to deep dive as much as I'd need to. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for dropping this. I believe ALT4a's fine.--Launchballer 23:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Personal information completely lacking

This article gives no information at all about the subject as a human being, none of the information included in a typical biographical article. Where was he born and when? Where and how was he educated? Does he have a family? His name suggests ancestry outside the United States, but he's identified only as "American". Even the section titled "Personal life and activities" mentions only interests and activities related more or less to his career, nothing unique about him as a person. The only hint is a 1984 photograph in which he looks to be in early middle age, but Wikipedia should be offering facts, not hints. Even people notable enough to be documented in Wikipedia have a right to some privacy, but this is extreme—far outside the norm for this or any other encyclopedia. —~2025-31220-95 (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

If you know of suitable sources we can use, please do let us know. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

GA review

VACATED
The status of the article with respect to the overall GA process is as if this instance of the process has never happened. This does not even count as a failed review. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:26, 7 February 2026 (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 review is transcluded from Talk:Leik Myrabo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Very Polite Person (talk · contribs) 19:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 13:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment. I just tagged the page for both WP:PEACOCK and possible failure of WP:NPROF. This GAN looks very premature. I will think about AfD.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The page also claimed (falsely) that he was a professor (he was an associate professor). I am going to get additional opinions. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
WP:NPROF is never a requirement, just an alternate besides WP:GNG route to guaranteed passage at AfD/AfC. Myrabo passes WP:GNG. It probably did easily off my first edit here. After today the article would be an easy keep.
I agree the language in some passages was too praise-y, this was one of my older GANs. That's cleaned up now; just needs another pass now to tidy up after my expansion today to deal with any notability worries. There's even more sourcing than just this; I hadn't even gotten into much of .gov, .mil, books or academic searches as of yet. There's an additional set of caches under each.
He is definitely vastly more notable for his professional engineering work/research than his academics. I don't think he'd pass WP:NPROF, but he wouldn't need to.
The article didn't falsely claim he was a professor. As the other person said on one of your posts, some of the sources had him as a full professor. Since the bulk seem to say associate, along with the archived RIP page, that's fine now. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
The sources that called him a prof were incorrect. But that is a minor point.
To continue, I did a little due diligence with a GS search for sources
  • "Appendix: Photon sail history, engineering and mission analysis", Deep-Space Probes, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 185–221, 2005, doi:10.1007/3-540-27340-9_15, ISBN 978-3-540-24772-2, retrieved 2026-02-06{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)
  • "A Photon Beam Propulsion Timeline | Centauri Dreams". www.centauri-dreams.org. Retrieved 2026-02-06.
  • Davis, Eric W.; Mead, Franklin B.; Pakhomov, Andrew V. (2008). "Review Of Laser Lightcraft Propulsion System". AIP Conference Proceedings. 997. AIP: 283–294. doi:10.1063/1.2931899.
I also looked at the page Lightcraft and Laser propulsion. These indicate serious issues of NPOV/Due.
Why
  1. A reader of this article will get the impression that Myrabo invented the whole idea of light powered spacecraft. However, this is not validated by the sources above, which includes his "collaborators" at ARL (technically the term collaborators is not really right).
  2. There are some definite peacock statements. For instance $50K/year is a starter grant, 1 PhD student and not worth mentioning. I cannot validate the "$1M grant". That is a bit better, but still not massive.
  3. I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Input on Leik Myrabo, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Input on Leik Myrabo and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Input on Leik Myrabo to get "expert" input. Except for a couple of minor comments at WT:Physics no responses. To date there is no "WP expert" support for this page.
Sorry, but I cannot recommend this for GA when I remain in doubt about whether this is a promo page that should be discussed at AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
I will ask you to close this GA review and send this to AfD. I strongly disagree with your positions here on this person notability, and your adversarial tone toward the subject is unusual.
I will be removing the maintenance tags again as I dispute your position and have not demonstrated lack of notability, while I have demonstrated notabiity. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
And for the record, your own source/timeline makes clear Myrabo did light-based propulsion here first: https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2016/06/24/a-photon-beam-propulsion-timeline/
Microwaves aren't even light-based propulsion and your source is year 2000 forward, when Myrabo was plainly working on this from the 1960s-2000s. His breakthroughs were in the late 80s/early to mid 90s.
I have concerns here about your interpretation of this subject matter and notability. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have raised my concerns about the behavior and experience of this WP:GAN

I have raised my concerns about the behavior and experience of this WP:GAN nomination here:

For awareness. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

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.

You can't leave maintenance tags without explaining them

I have again removed them and dispute notability and "expert" concerns. Send to AFD if you disagree. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The statement in this section title is entirely accurate. Where is said explanation? It should be on this page, but isn't. - Walter Ego 18:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Blew up here on the GAN page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leik_Myrabo/GA1
I also was never left any AfD notice. Also the frankly bizarre claims this is a promotional page. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

expert in Spaceflight, Astronomy or Physics

@Ldm1954: What counts as an "expert"? Someone who edits this space a lot? Have you noticed my user page? There's a chance I may know what I'm doing: , , , , , , , . — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and there is no real dispute here that would be solved by "expert" involvement when the complaint is that the sources are all somehow wrong. We cannot do WP:OR, we base this article on sources about the subject. Inventing one kind of thing does not mean he invented all similar things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully this clears up this confusion

Laser propulsion was developed in early proposals and subsequent practical work including that of Arthur Kantrowitz, while Myrabo's lightcraft invention successfully implemented it. Myrabo invented lightcraft. He initially developed the concept in the 1960s. In 1983, a NASA-sponsored study authored by Myrabo at the BDM Corporation outlined his propulsion concept, which proposed using beams to ionize air in front of a vehicle to generate thrust. According to the German Aerospace Center (DLR), the technical term lightcraft is associated with Myrabo's Lightcraft Technology Demonstrator.

This is now here: Leik Myrabo#Lightcraft research and propulsion concepts

@Ldm1954: If you have a reasonable position that I am misquoting any of the linked texts - and all are 100% accessible for everyone to see - I ask you to copy/paste the direct sentence to sentence to match you think I'm misquoting.

Show me:

  1. The source
  2. copy/paste me the exact text from the source
  3. copy/paste 'my' text
  4. show me what I did wrong

Think of it like Star Trek:

  • Desilu/Lucy/Roddenberries invented Star Trek
  • Trek invented warp
  • Alcubierre proofed warp (in real life)
  • Cochrane proved warp (within Star Trek)

Myrabo is analogous to Cochrane for "light make metal go from ground up into air" science with some of Alcubierre mixed in; Kantrowitz is mostly the Alcubierre.

Hopefully that is understandable. I still have no idea why you seem to think I have the article even "implying" that Myrabo invented the concept of laser propulsion itself. It, nor I, nor my sources, have ever said that. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Cochrane only proved warp on earth, it was in use throughout the universe at the time. - Walter Ego 08:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Fair. For all we know aliens are buzzing around on lightcraft. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I have raised my concerns about the behavior and experience of this WP:GAN

I have raised my concerns about the behavior and experience of this WP:GAN nomination here:

For awareness. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

What policy or guideline validates removing this from his bibliography?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leik_Myrabo&diff=1360176283&oldid=1360169646 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a coatrack to me! jps (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
That's not even at all how that works and is a made up interpretation. Why is THAT specific part of his publication record a problem? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Au contraire. That's exactly how this works. Hiding fringe ideas in see also sections is a tried-and-true technique of WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSHing. jps (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
That's not an answer. Can you please show what verbiage on what policy says his report on propulsion (which is not just about "field propulsion") should be excluded from his bibliography here? We need PAG, not emotion/vibes, which are powerless and meaningless at all times and in all ways. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
It is an answer because I replied to you. You might not like the answer, but it is an answer. I see that removal as in line with the cause to keep this biography as close to a WP:MAINSTREAM article as I can. There is nothing emotional or vibed-based about it. jps (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
His paper:
Is cited 21 times:
Of the papers that cite Myrabo's paper here:
  • Cited by 233
  • Cited by 142
  • Cited by 101
  • Cited by 11
  • Cited by 15
  • Cited by 10
etc.
What policy actually supports its removal? Seems mainstream. @Ldm1954, related to Field propulsion, thoughts here? I'm baffled why this particular paper should not be in Myrabo's bibliography section. It's not just "FP" but also his notable trivially passing WP:GNG works around beamed energy, lightcraft and so on. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED. The citations in the highly-cited articles are offhanded. The one cited 101 times is a self-citation. The one cited 15 times is by pseudoscientist and ufologist grifter Eric W. Davis. This the best you got? jps (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Uh huh. I believe regretfully you have yet to articulate a single policy based reason to justifiably exlude that one specific paper from his bibliography. I'm not sure why it matters if Davis cited him. Who is he? Who cares?
223 and 142 seem eminiently fine, and you will never have final say here (nor will I--you like me, we are merely peons and proles, one of many with no special say or power). So what's this about? What's wrong with that paper? Be blunt please. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSHing like you are doing is against the rules. I know you want UFOlogy to be taken more seriously, but this is not the place to do it. jps (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
What is PROFRINGE and POVPUSHING about this paper?
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19850024873/downloads/19850024873.pdf
You do have to answer the question. No editor can remove things cause "I said so". — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Sigh. WP:NOTCV. Reports like this that are not peer reviewed ought not to be promoted, in spite of what the ufologists want. jps (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes or no question: Beam-powered propulsion, Laser propulsion, Lightcraft and similar - is Myrabo an expert? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Mu. jps (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what? Are you claiming Leik Myrabo is not an expert and WP:RS on this domains? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm claiming unrefereed reports written by a person do not belong in a biography. jps (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Are you applying the whole logic of the science publication/clout game as a qualification for use as WP:RS in Wikipedia?
How effective one is at chasing a paycheck and grants or tenure isn't a WP:RS qualification surely. Do you have cause to assume this paper explicitly is not WP:RS?
Real-world outside the publication merry-go-round sciences don't get refereed like childrens games typically...?
What and who is referee over NASA and space agencies? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
There are white papers and grey literature. Sometimes those can be useful. But they don't really belong advertised on Wikipedia unless there is a clear rationale. Hell, even most peer reviewed papers don't deserve being listed on most biography pages. That's just WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. jps (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it matters if Davis cited him. Who is he? Who cares? You were the one who brought it up, not me. jps (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Including_a_scientist's_own_paper_in_his_Bibliography_section_on_Leik_Myrabo — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review

SUCCESSFUL
GA review status: Pass Abdullah1099 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 11 September 2026 (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 review is transcluded from Talk:Leik Myrabo/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Very Polite Person (talk · contribs) 19:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Abdullah1099 (talk · contribs) 03:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Quick fail check

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig says copyright violation is unlikely; highest similarity score is 20.0%, but that comes from listing full names of awards and institutions.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Leik Myrabo/GA2 discussion

I am reviewing this GA nomination and will tell you whether the article is a pass or fail in the process and what improvement is needed although i am new to GAN review of Biography of person. So, If i make any mistakes in the process please tell me. Abdullah1099 (talk/contribs) 03:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Very Polite Person, I want to tell you i have completed the review of Leik Myrabo. The problems and possible improvement that i found are:

Infobox options

1) Can you improve the infobox if more information available especially regarding his early life. Abdullah1099 (talk/contribs) 03:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
@Abdullah1099: check this out re infobox at your convenience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leik_Myrabo&diff=1373024057&oldid=1373023379
This seems to be about everything I can get in there. The other family related fields seem off as they're not blue links. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, The infobox looks complete now Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Image spread

2) Can you spread the images evenly per related topics. Abdullah1099 (talk/contribs) 03:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
What do you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leik_Myrabo&diff=1373026233&oldid=1373024057 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:08, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
This improvement also seems to be completed. Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Publications

3) I found out there is enough information to expand Selected publications section. Abdullah1099 (talk/contribs) 03:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
What is missing? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
I mean some more selected publications can be added to selected publications section from https://web.archive.org/web/20011126214512/http://www.rpi.edu/dept/mane/deptweb/faculty/member/myrabo.html Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
I added several representative conference papers from the RPI list ranging from Lightcraft modeling, laser propulsion, MHD research, to air spike research: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leik_Myrabo&diff=1374234407&oldid=1374230793 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:23, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
4) Also the first external link is not working correctly Abdullah1099 (talk/contribs) 03:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Fixed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leik_Myrabo&diff=1374230793&oldid=1373026233 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Sioux City Symphony

Other than these problems and improvement, I want to know what is Sioux City Symphony that is present in the Personal life and activities sections. As per @Guy Macon, I can't find that citation but the mentioned study in the citation is present in the article. Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Re Sioux City and Myrabo - his stepfather was a music conductor. This should clear that part up: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leik_Myrabo&diff=1373020353&oldid=1371949829 - from the POV of this page, it's just a standard red link. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:23, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, It clear my doubt Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion/general

@Abdullah1099: thanks! Let me know what you need. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Welcome @Very Polite Person, I had started the review process and this may take a week before completion but i had seen atleast the infobox is missing some details like no mention of the research paper he has studied and below it please solve the image mess by putting them where the are needed in the article or put them in a separate gallery section. Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
I dropped the largest redundant image and shifted them down to be less crowded. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind work Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
I got his thesis in now as well. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Any update? Thanks! — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay @Very Polite Person, Don't worry you will get an update soon Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Just as a curious fact, there is an interesting claim to a UFO connection here: Nothing in any reliable source, and thus nothing that we can add to the article, but interesting, nonetheless. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon, The review is not fully completed thus this all could be resolved after the solving the problems. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • @Very Polite Person: Have you finished addressing the above, and is this ready for a re-review? Z1720 (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, been sidetracked with IRL fires and distractions here. I'm still working on it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:20, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
    Ok, No problem @Very Polite Person, Let me know when all the improvements mentioned has been implemented. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
    I think that's the last item just now. Anything else? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
    Ok, Then the GA review is a Pass (Note: This is my first GA review of Biography. So, If i missed anything informing me is appreciated.) Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you! — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
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.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks