![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hopefully this article is not deleted, as there is a French version of the article as well DAID 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, there is an entire week long conference celebrating 50 years since the publication of this paper at CalTech this summer, so it is fair to say it deserves a wiki DAID 01:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe another section should be added which details both the processes outlined in the paper, and their contemporary counter-parts. However, in some cases, such as the alpha-process, this is easier said than done, so I have yet to complete this task. DAID 09:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved Alpha Quadrant talk 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
B²FH → B2FH paper — Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC) for the same reason Alpher–Bethe–Gamow paper is located there and not at Alpher–Bethe–Gamow. (The title would be display as "B2FH paper" through {{DISPLAYTITLE:B<sup>2</sup>FH paper}}.) I'd to a slight rewrite after the move. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The following text is possibly not optimally worded, because it confused me terribly, and it took a while for me to work out what the issue was:
observations indicate a strong negative correlation between a star's heavy element content (metallicity) and its age (red shift): younger stars tend to have higher metallicity.
I think the problem is partially in the use of the term 'younger' (especially with the reference to 'red shift' thrown in): I kept getting confused between the age of the universe when the star formed, the current age of the star, etc, etc. I kept thinking the fragment above meant 'the earliest formed stars have the most metals' (which is of course not what it means).
I'm going to change it to use the term 'more recently formed' instead of "younger", to remove that potential confusion - hope that's OK with everyone. Noel (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Concerned that introduction just contains a fairly silly attack, i.e 'overrated' (already marked as needing citation) and 'little new in the theory' (well, it's a review paper, not a primary 'results' paper) and that the citation for 'Hoyle's undercited 1954 paper' gives an incorrect year (1954 vs 1956 [fixed now]) and the 1956 paper doesn't seem to contain anything s- or r- process nucleosynthesis, rather, it is focussed on mass loss in giant stars ( See for yourself) Anonamouse77 ( talk) 15:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Anonamouse77
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on B2FH paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hopefully this article is not deleted, as there is a French version of the article as well DAID 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, there is an entire week long conference celebrating 50 years since the publication of this paper at CalTech this summer, so it is fair to say it deserves a wiki DAID 01:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe another section should be added which details both the processes outlined in the paper, and their contemporary counter-parts. However, in some cases, such as the alpha-process, this is easier said than done, so I have yet to complete this task. DAID 09:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved Alpha Quadrant talk 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
B²FH → B2FH paper — Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC) for the same reason Alpher–Bethe–Gamow paper is located there and not at Alpher–Bethe–Gamow. (The title would be display as "B2FH paper" through {{DISPLAYTITLE:B<sup>2</sup>FH paper}}.) I'd to a slight rewrite after the move. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The following text is possibly not optimally worded, because it confused me terribly, and it took a while for me to work out what the issue was:
observations indicate a strong negative correlation between a star's heavy element content (metallicity) and its age (red shift): younger stars tend to have higher metallicity.
I think the problem is partially in the use of the term 'younger' (especially with the reference to 'red shift' thrown in): I kept getting confused between the age of the universe when the star formed, the current age of the star, etc, etc. I kept thinking the fragment above meant 'the earliest formed stars have the most metals' (which is of course not what it means).
I'm going to change it to use the term 'more recently formed' instead of "younger", to remove that potential confusion - hope that's OK with everyone. Noel (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Concerned that introduction just contains a fairly silly attack, i.e 'overrated' (already marked as needing citation) and 'little new in the theory' (well, it's a review paper, not a primary 'results' paper) and that the citation for 'Hoyle's undercited 1954 paper' gives an incorrect year (1954 vs 1956 [fixed now]) and the 1956 paper doesn't seem to contain anything s- or r- process nucleosynthesis, rather, it is focussed on mass loss in giant stars ( See for yourself) Anonamouse77 ( talk) 15:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Anonamouse77
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on B2FH paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)