Template:Did you know nominations/Monochromatic radiation
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Closing as rejected per review issues and nominator concurrence
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Monochromatic radiation
- ... that no radiation can be totally monochromatic? Source: https://oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100206892
Created by Leomk0403 (talk) Jorge Stolfi (talk). Nominated by Leomk0403 (talk) at 04:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC).
@Leomk0403 and Jorge Stolfi: Nominated soon after creation, and about 2400 bytes, satisfying DYK length and date criteria. The article was created by User:Jorge Stolfi and nominated by User:Leomk0403, so it should not be listed as a self-nom (but that's just an administrative detail). QPQ not required, as this is nominator's first submission. The last paragraph of the "Properties and uses" lacks references, as does the entire "Generation" section. At least one citation is required for every paragraph, per Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Other supplementary rules for the article, point D2. Once the referencing issue is remedied, I will complete the review. Mindmatrix 14:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Leomk0403 and Mindmatrix: Thanks for the nomination, but I agree that it is premature. Note that I flagged the article as a stub only. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have no view on whether the article is ready or premature (whatever that means). What I do have a view on is that it’s beyond stub class and I’ve therefore removed the stub tag. Schwede66 17:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm doubtful about the hook. Most of the "Practical monochromaticity" section is not supported in the cited source, but appears to be (well-meaning) original research. I'm not sure that a two-sentence entry in Oxford Reference is reliable without considering how other sources define or use the term, especially since "monochromatic" seems to customarily be used in a way that does not require a perfect single frequency. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- * Ideally, this should be on hold for expansion + sources. @Jorge Stolfi, Schwede66, Mandarax, and Mindmatrix:, collaboration needed here. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 05:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Leomk0403, this cannot be kept on hold indefinitely, and the three weeks Mindmatrix alluded to is now nearly six weeks. I think it makes sense to allow another seven days for serious work to start on addressing the issues raised here. If no real progress is made by then, the nomination should probably be marked for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Leomk0403 has made over 250 Wikipedia edits since I posted above, and none were to the nominated article. (They did archive a reminder about this nomination I had posted to their talk page.) Under the circumstances, I have to consider the nomination abandoned, and have marked it for closure as unsuccessful. Should Leomk0403 post here prior to closure that they are prepared to actively address the outstanding issues, another seven days are available. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- * Ideally, this should be on hold for expansion + sources. @Jorge Stolfi, Schwede66, Mandarax, and Mindmatrix:, collaboration needed here. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 05:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot it. I think we could close this as rejected.Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 04:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)