Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electron/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:43, 30 August 2009 [1].

Electron

[edit]
Nominator(s): RJH (talk), Ruslik_Zero
Toolbox

This page has been updated to address the actionable issues that were raised since the previous FAC. The editors who expressed concerns were all notified, but had little or no additional comment. The article has also undergone an additional PR, and the content has been refined. The links were swept for dabs about a month ago and redirects were fixed. Alt tags have been added to all images. Hence I believe the article meets the FA criteria.—RJH (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Materialscientist. Support - it is extremely difficult to pull such a general article through FA because everyone has his/her opinion on the matter, but abstracting from that, the quality of the article is at FA level.

  • I would translate "Recherches sur la théorie des quanta" in the article or better delete it.
    Done. Ruslik_Zero 12:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lightning is an example of the phenomena produced by triboelectricity" - sounds as if triboelectricity is the major attribute of lightning. Please enlighten why this is true (reading Lightning, for example, gives somewhat different picture) or rephrase.
    The rubbing of ice ice crystals against each other (one of the hypothesis explaining charge separation) is an example of triboelectricity. Ruslik_Zero 12:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but as you say, it is one hypothesis, whereas that image caption reads as if it a clear cause. I don't see why mentioning triboelectricity is necessary there. You can just say that lightning involves electrons (in some way you choose). Materialscientist (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I expanded the caption to clarify the role of electrons. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The captions still says that lightning is caused by triboelectricity. Do we need a potential editing war there? Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The caption is properly cited, so I thought that was suitable. If it is controversial, then we can always substitute the wording "may be caused by". The image is at that location because the neighboring text discusses triboelectricity. If you plan on starting an edit war, then appropriate wikipedia policy applies. ;-) Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding "maybe" or references (but not edit warring) I could do myself ;-) No. I am pushing to delete triboelectricity there because (i) WP:NPOV (ii) The discussion on cause of lightning is such that the provided there (feeble) refs would not defend the claim (iii) it is unnecessary - there are so many more familiar and reliable examples of triboelectricity around, why do you need lightning for that - it is clear enough that it involves electrons.Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I just liked the dramatic imagery, so I thought would add some interest to what may otherwise be rather dry text. The placement next to the corresponding text seemed appropriate, per wikipedia guidelines.—RJH (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave up upon your stubbornness, just because it is indeed a minor issue. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Well I'm sorry we couldn't resolve this in a more amicable manner. Perhaps the role (and controversy) of triboelectricity could be explained on the lightning article itself, then we can revisit this later?—RJH (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Electronic conductivity of solids" could mention that electrons in solids are quasiparticles and have different properties from vacuum electrons.
    Done. Ruslik_Zero 12:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the other hand, metals have an electronic band structure that allows for delocalized electrons." - sounds too abrupt, as if metals are opposed to semiconductors in terms of delocalizaton. In general, this is incorrect, as delocalization depends on the structure (say, energy width) of the conduction band, not on the number of electrons there (i.e. metal/semiconductor), but I guess proper phrasing can save this.
    Done. Ruslik_Zero 12:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, also click the "disambig links" in the box on the right of this page and fix those. Materialscientist (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, on a whim. I noticed the FAC after the fact, through the title Gadget. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Addendum: I mean the dab links, not anything else… 16:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just thinking loud: it is a long article, but, you already started "Interaction" section with magnetic field in it. Perhaps it is worth mentioning Zeeman effect there, just giving a link to the relevant article? Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was left it out in order to keep the topic primarily focused on the electron. I added it to the "See also" section as a link. The Zeeman effect is also discussed on the atom article.—RJH (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us talk about your reverting my microscopy edits (no, I'm fine with that. Although I will use strong language below, I hope I am wrong and can learn from you)
    • "The scanning tunneling microscope .. can produce a three dimensional image of the object." - While operating STM (and STEM, TEM, etc) myself, I don't know how to get 3D images out of it. It only gives me a 2D (warped though) surface profile. Materialscientist (talk)
      • Sorry, my fault. I got the SEM and STM mixed up.—RJH (talk)
    • "The scanning transmission electron microscope combines features of both instrument types and is primarily used to analyze materials." - isn't "used to analyze materials" a weasel here? Never mind. More serious is that although it is tempting to think that STM + TEM ≈ STEM, STM operates on entirely different physics and does not belong to the class of electron microscopes. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That SEM and STEM resembles a TV set is a crude description, but the closest I have on how to explain SEM and STEM in a few words to a non-specialist. You have a better idea? Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with a beam of electrons passing through a thin slice of material." - is another weasel, even for a specialist. At least a dozen of grades of "thin" are distinguished in microscopy. Even for a single type (say TEM) it may range from, say 50 to 500 nm depending on voltage. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made some edits to try and resolve these issues.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And I made some edits to try and resolve your edits :-)) Feel free to correct, but I'll explain why: the practice is such that most optical microscopes are used in reflection mode, whereas there are only few reflection TEMs in the world; TV camera has relation only to an SEM detector, not to the microscope itself. Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".. while telescopes can detect electron plasma by its energy emission" Sorry for salting a wound (the lead), but there, this phrase does sound like electron plasma is exclusively detected by telescopes - No! Only some, dedicated telescopes can detect electron plasma which exists in the outer space. Electron plasma is routinely created on Earth and is analyzed by much simpler instruments. Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We must read the english language differently because my mind is not substituting words like "only", "some" or "exclusively" in that sentence. The statement as it stands is literally correct, but I have no problem with a refinement.—RJH (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Argh .. Sure it is correct, but to me its like writing "crows can say 'Hallo'" in the lead of a crow article. I tweaked that sentence. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So... question then. Is electron plasma only detected by dedicated instruments, or can the resulting emissions be picked up by general purpose radio telescopes that are looking in the appropriate band? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for not reverting me on this. Get rest and reread the message above "dedicated instruments, or .. general purpose radio telescopes that are looking in the appropriate band" - what could be more dedicated than the latter? Just to convey my experience (in building my telescopes, talking to people around, etc). To 99.99% of people, telescope is a device for visual observation. Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We find this at ref 9

Anastopoulos, 2008, pp. 236–237

and have to go looking fr Anastopoulus, find him later. Yet, some other repeat refs link back to the full citation. Be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for a comprehensive, well-written and engaging article on a particle that will define our epoch. The sources are predominantly respected peer-reviewed journals and I see no problems with the licensing of the (excellent) images. This is one of the best candidates I have reviewed this year. Graham Colm Talk 21:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very thorough and knowledgeable. Maxis ftw (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - As per last time, it is simply excellent. ceranthor 14:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a somewhat long article and has a somewhat long lead (more than a screenful on my laptop); I'll have to take a careful read at it before supporting or opposing. I suppose that it might be trimmed by moving stuff to sub-articles, and the lead should be trimmed by moving stuff to sections. (Do you think you really need to mention Hawking radiation in the lead? BTW, much of the stuff in it would apply to any particle, and most of it to any charged particle.) But this is a very broad topic so I suspect that even a 20% reduction might be impossible. --   A. di M. 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I don't think this satisfies criterion 4. At 56.2 KB of proses, it is more than twice as big as the median featured article; only 73 out of 2519 FAs would be longer. For most readers, reading it will take far longer than their attention span. The "History" section is really long; I don't think most readers will be interested in that level of detail before even reading anything about present or non-temporal properties of the electron (besides the lead). I'd move it to a sub-article, and replace it with a summary of no more than a dozen paragraphs (plus one for the etymology). The first two paragraph of "Quantum properties" and most of "Motion and energy" would apply to pretty much any particle (at least, any charged fermion), but I don't think such detailed explanations are necessary here, any more than, say, in the Quark, Proton, Muon, etc. articles. One-paragraph mentions of such things with links to the articles where they are explained in more detail, such as Mass in special relativity etc., would be sufficient and less distracting. Likewise, one might move the "Plasma applications" section to a sub-article and replace it with a four-paragraph summary. OTOH, I don't see any problem with the quality of the material, only with the quantity. I've found no serious issue, and fixed all the trivial issues I could find (except for a few Easter egg links in the lead, as making them explicit without changing anything else would make the lead even more bulky than it already is). So I abstain from !voting. --   A. di M. 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a big topic and thus I believe it justifies a longer article than normal. But if you eliminate the material from the "See also" onward, it is 8757 words, which is under the limit of 10,000. Yes there is some information that is redundant with other particles, but I believe this content is appropriate to provide necessary background and satisfy comprehensiveness. (It also makes it less necessary to keep hoping between articles just to find out about the electron.) The history section is already a summary of a much longer article, and I think it provides important background and context. I'm unclear about the easter egg stuff. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By "Easter egg links" I mean links whose destination is not obvious until one hovers on it, such as no known substructure, bound, welding, lasers, etc. For example, in the last case, if one didn't hover on the link, they would think that the link takes to the general article on lasers and the reference to a particular type of lasers would be missed. Usually, it is better to write "is an elementary particle, meaning that it has no known substructure", "free electron lasers", etc., but this lead is already very long as it is, so I hesitate fixing them. As for the size issue, some info isn't "just about the electron". For articles on very general topics such as this one, it is better to assume that most readers will be laymen; as a consequence, not only they won't be interested in very advanced details, they would also get bored by them, skipping whole paragraphs in reading, and potentially missing more basic information. Stuff such as the fact that by swapping two fermions their wavefunction changes sign isn't really specific to electrons and won't interest about 85% of readers, so it's not a major issue if the remaining 15% will have to look it up in the Fermion article. (Also, WP:SIZE suggests that articles on technical topics should generally be shorter than those on more general topics.) I understand that we neither can nor should shrink the article to 25 KB of prose, but I think it is somewhat longish as it is now. (BTW, I would slightly shorten and restructure the lead on the model of that of Quark: one paragraph defining the electron in relation to stuff most laymen have heard about, such as atoms and chemical bounds; one on the placement of the electron in the context of the Standard Model; one on other properties of the electron, and one on history. I'll give it a try in a sandbox and publish a link here and on Talk:Electron when I'm done.) --   A. di M. 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the issues here is that the article has grown in an effort to accommodate other reviews. Hence the lead is longer than it was in the previous review primarily because others complained about it not covering all of the sections. Likewise the previous review said the applications section wasn't sufficiently developed. Unfortunately I can't please everybody, and I have to say that I am fairly happy with the current level of development. In short, my preference is to stick with the current layout and length.—RJH (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then. I'm a big fan of summary style, but if everyone else disagrees... But the info in the lead could be re-arranged to have a more logical structure: see User:A. di M./Electron for an example. As it is now, it jumps between a topic and another without apparent reason ("fermion" introduced in third sentence, but its significance unexplained until end of second paragraph). In my example, the first paragraph is about the relevance of electrons to "everyday world", the second about classification, the third about interaction and creation/destruction, and the fourth about history. I had removed details which IMO are insignificant, such as what nuclei are composed of and how charged particles move in magnetic fields, but if you feel they're necessary, add them back. (Feel free to edit my sandbox, too.) --   A. di M. 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead has been re-arranged many, many times, each according to the opinion of the editor or the reviewer. Again it's an area where I can't please everybody, and trying to do so has proven exasperating. I do think it is important to get through the key properties of the electron first before delving into interactions and other applications.—RJH (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea is good, but to most readers the fact that the electron is a fermion or that it can annihilate with positrons are not key properties. (The former unless you mention the exclusion principle right there, and the latter unless they are reading Angels and Demons.) That electrons together with nuclei make up atoms and that, although contributing to very little of the mass, they are fundamental in many phenomena such as electric conduction is. You need to tell Aunt Tillie that the electrons are those small things surrounding nuclei in atoms as soon as possible. After the first paragraph, you can proceed to use a more logical structure. Now there is the second paragraph which discusses of two completely unrelated topics, and so does the fourth. (At the very least, you could add a para break after "... of British physicists" and after "... negative beta decay", and remove the ones after "... Pauli exclusion principle" and "... of chemical bonding". But that'd result in a ginormous third paragraph.) --   A. di M. 09:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you write your version of the lead in a sandbox, so that we have something to compare? Ruslik_Zero 10:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a rough draft. (I've tweaked since yesterday to address the point of "properties before applications".) I'm not attached to a particular wording or choice of what to include, only showing an example of what my proposed structure would look like. --___A. di M. 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that seems fine to me after a quick glance. But other editors and reviewers have different priorities on the matter, and the current form seems to have attained some stability. I also think that a comparison with quark article may not be the best, in that quarks are different types of beasties that must be described in the context of the particles they inhabit, whereas electrons can stand by themselves. No matter. I'm sure it will be rearranged many more times in the future. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is quite good but has a few glitches that need fixing. Alt text is missing for Image:Orbital s1.png. The alt text beginning "A red sphere at lower left" is technically incorrect (the sphere is blue, not red) but also emphasizes unimportant color detail (red/blue) while not mentioning the more-important detail (+/−); please rephrease it to talk about the sign, not the color. Similarly, don't mention the irrelevant colors in "An orange photon strikes ...". The phrase "over Oradea, Romania" cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image and should be removed as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. Eubulides (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Much better, but as a casual reader I'm left floundering in places; I've made some minor changes myself (revert if I'm not on the same wave length...) but there are some more issues to tackle:
    • Lead: "of gamma ray photons." Photons isn't linked here, and yet slightly further down it is, despite this being the first occurence. Is this due to the fact that gamma ray is also linked and this may cause confusion (i.e. "gamma ray photons" as a new thing). Is there no way this could be worded better (I'm no scientist, perhaps not) so as to link photon sooner rather than later?
      • This happened because the lead section keeps getting re-arranged. I moved the photon link up to the first occurrence.—RJH (talk)
    • The statement at the end of the first section on History: "At the end of the nineteenth century, the various scientific concepts [...]". After reading it I am left thinking "And? So what?": what was the unified theory? Are "the various scientific concepts" the ones already discussed or were there others? What was the result of this? If there was no result, is it worth mentioning this at all?
      • Yes, I was trying to keep it short, per summary style. I'll try to re-write it.—RJH (talk)
    • Discovery: "[...] study of electrical conductivity in rarified gases." As someone not in the know, a casual reader, what are rarified gases? I don't think I've missed an explanation of them.
      • I inserted an interwiki link to the wiktionary entry, and changed it to the more common spelling.—RJH (talk)
    • " ": "electrical potential". What is this? Certainly not the way I'm thinking of it, because it is being applied.
    • " ": "toward the positive plate". Assuming positively charged plate. If so, you haven't yet mentioned any charge, so for the first occurence I think it's essential.
    • " ": "such an unexpectedly large value". Would giving the value here be applicable?
    • Atomic theory: "the then-recently developed quantum mechanics". Reads a bit off to me. How about: "The (then-recently developed) field of quantum mechanics", or without the brackets/parentheses. Also quantum mechanics needs linking, doesn't it?
    • " ": "which had two possible values". If these two possible values were always the same (e.g. 6 or 8) I think we need be given them. Otherwise the distinction needs to be made, such as "which always had two distinct possible values".
    • Quantum mechanics: "and a trajectory that is subject to modification by external forces". This comprises part of quite a long and complex sentence, it would be nice to have an example at the end that may be understood and relevant (as in "by external forces (e.g. gravity)").
    • " ": "a refined version of the quantum electrodynamics theory was developed". When was this developed?
    • The linking appears inconsistent. At the end of History and beginning of Characteristics, the same phrase is repeated, "the Standard Model of particle physics". In the first instance only SM is linked, yet in the second both SM and pp are. This happens again in the next section. Other cases include "quantum mechanics" (brought up earlier); the "speed of light" was linked twice (despite the cases being comparitively near to each other) and yet in History, proton and neutron are not linked with distance between their previous occurence in the lead.
  • That's all I've got time for at the moment. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconding A. di M. I agree with A. di M. above. The article is too long, and some sections - like 'History' and 'Virtual particles' - seem to be given undue length. GeometryGirl (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, unfortunately it is difficult to please everybody and this conflicts with previous reviews that wanted a longer article. I'll also have to disagree that the 'Virtual particle' section is given undue weight. That's an important and interesting section, at least to me. :-) —RJH (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I would support RJH here - the questioned sections have a length balanced with other sections. Regarding their topics, history is by all means important to non-specialists, and virtual particles to specialists, as they are at the heart of most theories. I myself do not understand length arguments (BTW, A. di M. seems to abandon them) - modern computers don't seem to bother with those. Neither do people - hardly anyone reads a WP article from top to bottom (unless (s)he is an FA/GA reviewer :). Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. Yes that was kind of my thinking as well. Somebody who is already familiar with the history would likely skip it, whereas most readers would hopefully find it useful background for how scientists arrived at their current understanding of the electron. The virtual particle section seems important to me because it explains some of the more obscure, but still important, measurements of the electron. Since this is a "vital article", I think that section may also serve as a good lead in to redirect curious readers to the topic of virtual particles, where the subject can be more fully explored.—RJH (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—At present the article is being edit warred by an editor who is imposing a different citation standard based on a desire to impose uniform appearance. I am having difficultly dealing with this behavior so I'm officially abandoning this page to whatever fate it has in store. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you overreacted here: changes made by Headbomb are minor and primarily stylistic. He did not remove any information or change the text. The majority of changes make sense to me. Please, reconsider your position. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Article completely fails to meet the the first principle of the manual of style. The citations are bloated with redundant urls when {{arxiv}} and {{bibcode}} templates should be used, author-linking logic is completely arbitary, and lots of other issues such as deadlinks and potentially questionable references in some places ... I hate people who oppose based on style and who don't do a thing about it, so I usually fix the problems as I see them to help them meet the standards, but this time I keep being reverted to inferior and inconsistant versions. Since this does not illustrate wikipedia's best work, I have no choice but to oppose. Which is a damn shame because the rest seems up to par (although I did not yet fully review the content), and RJH worked so hard on this.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Headbomb. I have checked links with this tool right after FA submission and now. No problems found. To RJHall. Try to get some rest and return to the review in a couple of days. It does look like you're near the edge. Sorry for this stupid advise, but this is what your message above says (abandoning FAC because of style comments), behind the lines. Best wishes. Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that there is no requirement to have author names either all be full first names or be initials, that isn't what "consistent" means for the MOS. And I found no dead links. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Feynman is usually "Richard" and Thomson is usually "J.J." there's little point in changing that. But I still go with either "Surname, Given_name" or "Given_name Surname" consistently in all refs, whichever way each given name is written (provided there are no Japanese, Icelanders, Hungarians or other people with funny naming conventions). In my experience the former is more common, but I think that's exclusively for alphabetization reasons, as co-authored papers are very often cited as "Doe, John and Jack Schmuck". (Didn't check the other details of this HB–RJH war and won't bother to, so I can't comment.) --___A. di M. 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Electron/archive2&oldid=1138459339"