Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of baryons/archive1

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [1].

List of baryons

[edit]

Self-nomination. I nominate the List of baryons because I believe in now satisfies all the criteria of a featured list.

The list provides information (masses, decay products, quantum numbers...) of all the particles than can be made out all quarks that are expected to form baryons in both spin 1⁄2 and 3⁄2 configurations, as well as all reported exotic baryons. Everything is fully referenced through the Particle Data Group Review of 2006 where possible, with some additional references provided where needed. Naming conventions of baryons are given, and the articles related to a full understanding of the naming conventions were expanded (namely, isospin.

About 10 editors worked on this and gave comments, and every concern was addressed (except a minor thing that will be fixed tomorrow (May 16th). Wikiproject Physics was notified. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 06:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of concerns

[edit]
  • Unkowns in italics (Resolved)
  • List is mangled up on certain browsers (Ongoing)
  • Concepts such as X aren't explain at all (Ongoing)
  • Spin, orbital angular momentum, total angular momentum (Resolved)
  • Isospin and relation with charge (Resolved)
  • Flavour quantum numbers (Resolved)
  • Parity (Ongoing))
  • Decay (Ongoing))
  • Explanation for topic X are confusing for the layman (Ongoing(?))
  • Spin, orbital angular momentum, total angular momentum (Ongoing(?))
  • Isospin and relation with charge (Ongoing(?))
  • Flavour quantum numbers (Ongoing(?))
  • Parity (No explanation yet))
  • Decay (No explanation yet))
  • Not enough reference in lead (Resolved (?))
  • Not enough reference in overview (Ongoing)
  • Ref tags should be after punctuation (Resolved)
  • 4 main articles should be on 1 line, not 4 (Resolved)
  • List of known baryon should not be bold (Ongoing)
  • Too much link in the list (Ongoing)
  • Clickable footnotes (Resolved (?))
  • Symbols could be recapped before in the list section (Ongoing)


Discussion

[edit]
  • Well, I have the most used browser, IE7, and the page's width doubles because of that template. As soon as I remove that template from the page, I click on preview and everything is fine. Also, I can't fully see what is written in the "Jp" column in the first table. All I see is "1/".--Crzycheetah 08:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I spent about 40 minutes trying to figure out what's wrong with this page. When I remove {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom sigma0}}, {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom sigma*}}, and {{SubatomicParticle|Bottom Xi-}}, all the mess disappears. So there's something wrong with these three particles. The mess in the table remains, though. I can't see what's written in the "I" and "Jp" columns in the first two tables. For me, it is not visually appealing(criterion #6) because I can't see most of the entries in the table and the page remains wider than normal, which in turn makes reading the page difficult. --Crzycheetah 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's much improved, but still not there yet. Now, I can see those "1/2" parts at least. Those "+" signs at the bottom of each cell are seen in some cells, but not the others. In some cells, those "+" signs are to the right of 1/2. Whatever you did here, you can do to the JP = 3⁄2+ baryons (triquarks) section. I think it would have been better if you used ½ instead of {{frac|1|2}}.--Crzycheetah 22:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like the table, although I haven't checked the individual entries throughout. One suggestion might be to give a fuller, more-lay-person-centric explanation for some of the columns; for example, readers may have no idea about isospin or J. I don't think we're writing for the experts—they're not going to look things up on Wikipedia, right?—but rather for amateur college students, educated adults and maybe advanced high-schoolers. It'd be better if they didn't have to follow links all the time. Willow (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took me a damn long while to figure what the hell isospin was at first (as in a month or so). I wrote isospin#Modern understanding of isospin as a result. It was on the list of baryons, but it was rather lengthy and outside of the scope of the list itself. There was a general agreement that the isospin section was more appropriate at the isospin page, so I put "Main article: Isospin" in the overview section. As for layperson explanations of J (total angular momentum), it would be very hard to achieve in a few lines, but I will try to give laypersons a bone to chew on. Give me a day or two and I'll get back to you.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote the spin section, I decided to give a full coverage of pretty much topic of particle physics. Isospin, spin, isospin and spin projections, total angular momentum, charge, flavour quantum numbers, symmetry breaking, etc... This article is now almost self-contained (only an explanation of Pauli was left out). Tell me what you think (feel free to copyedit).Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please refer to Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
  • Move refs 1 and 2 to after the punctuation, per WP:CS
  • Are the 4 {{main}} links necessary in the "Spin, orbital angular momentum , and total angular momentum" section? I noticed that at least two of those links are used within the prose
  • {{main}} is pipable, which means that instead of the remaining two under two different lines, you can do {{main|link1|link2}}, which will render
    Main articles: link1 and link2
  • Place reference 4 at the end of the sentence
  • Prose needs more citations. Except for reference 4, nothing in every single subsection of the "Overview" section has been cited. For a math/equation/science buffoon like myself, how do I know that anything that has been stated is true?
  • I have no idea what any of those abbreviations in the JP = 1⁄2+ baryons (triquarks) table mean.
    • I think there should be an additional column to explain in words what each of the entries under the "Symbol" column is.
    • You could use a small Key table to explain what uud, udd etc means for "Quark content"
    • Also no explanation of the contents of the "Commonly decays" cells.
      • I know that I could click on each link, but I don't particularly want to navigate away from the list to find out what every single squiggle or abbreviation means. It's also a problem for people who are reading the list after printing it out on a piece of paper
  • Clicking on the sort buttons for "I" "JP" "Q" "S" "C" and B'" columns four times makes the columns not sort correctly
  • Make the footnotes clickable by using {{ref label}} and {{note label}}
  • The JP = 3⁄2+ baryons (triquarks)* table has the same sortability problems
    • For example "Q" sorts +1, +2, 0, "S" and "b'" don't sort at all, "C" does some funny sorting after a few clicks (sometimes it includes the 0 in the sorting, other times it doesn't)

It's a good topic, but right now it's too exclusionist in that probably only scientists or people with a good knowledge of the subject can understand it. under The criteria (1) the PROSE must be professional, not too complicated for the average user; and (4) the STRUCTURE should be easy to navigate. With the sortability issues, and the fact that all those symbols and abbreviations have to be clicked on (which as mentioned before is a problem when using a printed version), means it isn't. As such, I'm opposing. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to Matthewedwards

  • First, thank for the feedback that will be very useful.
  • The bold List of known and predicted baryons was made according to MOS. After reading that discussion, it seems that people are worried about having straight repetitions of the article title (aka the topic "List of Nascar pilots" would have "This is a list of Nascar pilots." without further info in the sentence) or repetition of the bold part as a explanation (The list of baryons is a list of known and predicted baryons). In this case, what is in the list is further expanded (List of known and predicted baryon), and there is no repetition, so I don't see why it should not be in bold.
  • Refs [1],[2],[4] were moved after periods.
  • "Main articles" were merged in one line.
  • Overview has been expanded recently so I did not add references yet. I'm actively searching for some as we speak.
  • I means isospin (see on isospin), JP = 1⁄2+ means a total angular momentum of 1⁄2 h-bar with positive parity (see section on spin and total angular momentum), S, B′', C, T are the flavour quantum numbers (see on flavour quantum numbers). I guess I could recap symbols things in the Lists section (end of the day done).
  • Overview will be expanded to contain parity and decay (give me a day or two for that however)
  • I'm very iffy about removing links. I'm not saying it can't be done, but every particle symbol are linked for uniformity (link one, link all I say), and because many people don't know their greek, so just by hovering they are reminded of what the name of the Greek letter is.
  • For the decays, their are simply too wide a variety of particles listed to give explanations that would remove the need for links. The importance of printing a nice and tidy list is IMO superseded by the need for quick info when navigating the list. The links in "particle name" were removed, as I agree there is no need of linking "Sigma" twenty times.
  • What do you mean by making footnotes clickable? You can click on the [#] to go to the relevant footnote, and when in the footnote section you can click on the ^ to go find where it was used in text.
  • Sortability seems to be a problem with the way tables handle things and reaches far beyond this article alone. It could be removed, but then people would complain that you can't sort the table. I tried looking on the village pump for help/place to report the problem, but I got lost in there.
  • I tried to explain everything at the layman's level, and I think I've done a fairly good job at that (but don't be shy in pointing places where explanations are confusing, or where the "prose" gets murky). This is a topic that usually requires a very high level of understanding of advanced physics and advanced math topics such as group theory and lie algebra. So I do not think the criteria should be "can Jimmy understand everything here with a quick read?", but rather "Are the important concepts required for an understanding of this list explained in terms that can be understood by non-experts?", "Does this give a good overview of what is known about the properties of baryons" and "Is the encyclopedic value of the list comparable or superior to the other featured list".

Check the list in a day or two to see what progress has been made to address these concerns. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 04:58, 30 May 2008 (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_list_candidates/List_of_baryons/archive1&oldid=1144646992"