Talk:Christofilos effect

Much of the page was a verbatim copy of http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/bh2_3.html and http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/newswires/2002_10_21.html#5 Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lines of force?

Magnetic field lines aren't lines of force... I'm not quite sure what the article means to say. --Reuben 06:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it looks like it actually is fairly common for magnetic field lines to be called "lines of force." I was taught that magnetic field lines are not properly lines of force, since the force on a charged particle in a magnetic field is always perpendicular to the field lines, not along them. Oh well. --Reuben 06:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov?

Why is Asimov cited here? MaoGo (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently ineligible for DYK, but may be renominated once promoted to GA status

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Christofilos effect appeared to render the Soviet ICBM fleet useless at a stroke, leading to a rushed effort to test it in Operation Argus? Source: jones, pages 15 and 18

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/UpCounsel

5x expanded by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 13:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:

New enough: - DYK check tool indicates the article has not been expanded 5x within 7 days of the DYK nomnation
Long enough:
Other problems: - Article is a stub

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:

QPQ:
Overall: The article's revision history confirms the DYK check tool assessment of no 5x expansion within the required time. ~ RLO1729^💬 06:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, before expansion began, it was 5810 prose characters, meaning a five times expansion would have to be 29050, but it's currently 19018. Maury Markowitz, I doubt you'd be able to add another 10k prose characters, but if you get it to good article status, you may resubmit within a week of that designation. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK check told me it was five days when I clicked it. But I give up. Withdraw. But how is this a stub? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you saw DYK check reporting that the 5x expansion began on June 13, and thought that was a few days ago, without noticing that it's actually June 13, 2016. It's too bad you didn't nominate it after your 2016 expansion of the article.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a stub when DYK nominated and reviewed. I then upgraded it to C class after some copy editing. The article is not too far from GA; well done bringing it so far. Cheers, ~ RLO1729^💬 01:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RLO1729:Stub tab was removed in 2017. Am I missing something? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Ohhhh, you mean on the talk page tab... those should be removed IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article was still classed as a stub on the Talk page on 17 June 2020, please see this diff. The DYK check tool also flagged the article as a stub. Nevertheless, I hope the article can be brought to GA status and that you will consider resubmitting a DYK then. :) ~ RLO1729^💬 12:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]