Bouncing ball has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 21, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Bouncing ball appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 March 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
@ Headbomb: I was too busy to read your article carefully, but it looks good. You may be interested in some links that are already on commons:
I read this article and considered reviewing it for the GAN, but I do not have enough technical expertise in mechanics to feel competent to verify most of the content. I also feel it would be a better process for me to nominate an article and learn from the feedback provided by a reviewer. If it goes another week lacking a reviewer, though, I could probably be persuaded to just jump into the deep end, maybe with a mentor?
I do have a question, though, about the last paragraph, first sentence: "The bouncing of a gridiron football was at the center of the deflategate controversy." Bouncing is not mentioned in either of the references provided, but the Well report does quote Tom Brady on page 40, commenting on the inflation level of the balls during an earlier game:
According to Brady, Jastremski and other Patriots personnel, during the October 2014 Jets game, Brady complained angrily about the feel and inflation level of the game balls. He told Jastremski between drives that the balls felt "like bricks" and were heavier and harder to grip than they had been when he approved them prior to the game. Although Jastremski believed during the game that Brady was simply being competitive, he tested the air pressure of the game balls the next morning, discovered that many of them were over-inflated, and told Brady that he was right. [emphasis mine].
So my question is: are you using "bouncing" as a synonym for "inflation level" in this context? It is true that gauge pressure is correlated with bounciness, and gauge pressure is what is regulated by the NFL, but bounciness was not really the issue — it was whether Brady gained an illegal advantage being able to grip and throw a softer, lighter ball. It's misleading/inaccurate to say that the bouncing of the gridiron football was the issue at the center of the controversy; it would be more accurate to say, "Gauge pressure was at the center of the deflategate controversy." Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 22:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
From [note 1]: "Here, v and u are not just the magnitude of velocities, but include also their direction (sign)."
This is confusing to anyone with a bit of background of Euclidean vectors (adding a sign to a magnitude is undefined), so clarification might be appropriate. Should it be "Here, v and u are the single component of the velocities, including sign, where all motion is one-dimensional."? — Quondum 18:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Reyk ( talk · contribs) 12:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll start on this in the next day or so. First impression is very positive.
Reyk
YO!
12:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, so I've had a careful read through the article and it is very close to being passed as a GA. The most obvious criteria are fulfilled already: a high standard of writing, complete and accurate sourcing, no copyright issues that I can detect, and a sensible selection of images. My major concerns are that it's a bit math-heavy, and that it lacks a discussion on the history of the scientific investigation of bouncing balls. I'd also suggest moving a few of the images to the left to break up the monotony of them all being on the right side. In the next few days I'll go through the article thoroughly, section by section, and make a few specific suggestions, but I don't see any reason why this can't be passed within a week or so. Nice article!
Reyk
YO!
18:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Well written and representative of the rest of the content, if perhaps a little brief. Adding a few words on the historic importance of investigating the physics of bouncing balls would help in this regard.
This looks OK.
This looks OK.
This is all pretty much OK, but it would perhaps benefit from an example of a kind of ball with low Reynolds number where the Stokes Drag effect dominates.
I don't understand why the paragraph on ball tampering is in this section. Did these instances of ball tampering involve changing the spin characteristics of the ball? If so, that should be clearer.
All fine.
This is all OK, but perhaps a few words on how impact velocity affects the COR.
This is all good, well written and informative.
Again, this is all good. Earlier, the article says the COR can exceed 1 in the case of, eg, a spring-loaded impact surface. It might be worth briefly mentioning there that rotational velocity can influence this too.
This is well sourced and interesting, particularly the applications to astrophysics.
Also fine. I would suggest adding Australian Rules Football, because that is the most significant oval-ball sport in which bouncing the ball is a major part of the game: [1]
Reyk, Headbomb, it's been over two months since the article was last edited, and over six weeks since the last post to this page. Where does the review stand, and how much work remains to be done on the article? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, I had another read through the article and I think it's good to go. The bit about the ball tampering in cricket still is a bit lacking in context but that's not a dealbreaker, so I'm going ahead and promoting this article. Thanks for improving the encyclopedia. Reyk YO! 11:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Bouncing ball has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 21, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Bouncing ball appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 March 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
@ Headbomb: I was too busy to read your article carefully, but it looks good. You may be interested in some links that are already on commons:
I read this article and considered reviewing it for the GAN, but I do not have enough technical expertise in mechanics to feel competent to verify most of the content. I also feel it would be a better process for me to nominate an article and learn from the feedback provided by a reviewer. If it goes another week lacking a reviewer, though, I could probably be persuaded to just jump into the deep end, maybe with a mentor?
I do have a question, though, about the last paragraph, first sentence: "The bouncing of a gridiron football was at the center of the deflategate controversy." Bouncing is not mentioned in either of the references provided, but the Well report does quote Tom Brady on page 40, commenting on the inflation level of the balls during an earlier game:
According to Brady, Jastremski and other Patriots personnel, during the October 2014 Jets game, Brady complained angrily about the feel and inflation level of the game balls. He told Jastremski between drives that the balls felt "like bricks" and were heavier and harder to grip than they had been when he approved them prior to the game. Although Jastremski believed during the game that Brady was simply being competitive, he tested the air pressure of the game balls the next morning, discovered that many of them were over-inflated, and told Brady that he was right. [emphasis mine].
So my question is: are you using "bouncing" as a synonym for "inflation level" in this context? It is true that gauge pressure is correlated with bounciness, and gauge pressure is what is regulated by the NFL, but bounciness was not really the issue — it was whether Brady gained an illegal advantage being able to grip and throw a softer, lighter ball. It's misleading/inaccurate to say that the bouncing of the gridiron football was the issue at the center of the controversy; it would be more accurate to say, "Gauge pressure was at the center of the deflategate controversy." Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 22:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
From [note 1]: "Here, v and u are not just the magnitude of velocities, but include also their direction (sign)."
This is confusing to anyone with a bit of background of Euclidean vectors (adding a sign to a magnitude is undefined), so clarification might be appropriate. Should it be "Here, v and u are the single component of the velocities, including sign, where all motion is one-dimensional."? — Quondum 18:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Reyk ( talk · contribs) 12:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll start on this in the next day or so. First impression is very positive.
Reyk
YO!
12:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, so I've had a careful read through the article and it is very close to being passed as a GA. The most obvious criteria are fulfilled already: a high standard of writing, complete and accurate sourcing, no copyright issues that I can detect, and a sensible selection of images. My major concerns are that it's a bit math-heavy, and that it lacks a discussion on the history of the scientific investigation of bouncing balls. I'd also suggest moving a few of the images to the left to break up the monotony of them all being on the right side. In the next few days I'll go through the article thoroughly, section by section, and make a few specific suggestions, but I don't see any reason why this can't be passed within a week or so. Nice article!
Reyk
YO!
18:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Well written and representative of the rest of the content, if perhaps a little brief. Adding a few words on the historic importance of investigating the physics of bouncing balls would help in this regard.
This looks OK.
This looks OK.
This is all pretty much OK, but it would perhaps benefit from an example of a kind of ball with low Reynolds number where the Stokes Drag effect dominates.
I don't understand why the paragraph on ball tampering is in this section. Did these instances of ball tampering involve changing the spin characteristics of the ball? If so, that should be clearer.
All fine.
This is all OK, but perhaps a few words on how impact velocity affects the COR.
This is all good, well written and informative.
Again, this is all good. Earlier, the article says the COR can exceed 1 in the case of, eg, a spring-loaded impact surface. It might be worth briefly mentioning there that rotational velocity can influence this too.
This is well sourced and interesting, particularly the applications to astrophysics.
Also fine. I would suggest adding Australian Rules Football, because that is the most significant oval-ball sport in which bouncing the ball is a major part of the game: [1]
Reyk, Headbomb, it's been over two months since the article was last edited, and over six weeks since the last post to this page. Where does the review stand, and how much work remains to be done on the article? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, I had another read through the article and I think it's good to go. The bit about the ball tampering in cricket still is a bit lacking in context but that's not a dealbreaker, so I'm going ahead and promoting this article. Thanks for improving the encyclopedia. Reyk YO! 11:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)