GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk · contribs) 04:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm starting to look the article over. This is a pretty huge subject that you're trying to cover in not so many words here! You've made a heroic effort to be comprehensive even if it's meant that you haven't been able to spare more than a few words for any one topic. I'll try to take that goal of yours into account in my review. The alternative, of course, is to focus on the most important topics at the expense of neglecting some. Both approaches have good and bad points to them. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 04:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Description | Rating |
---|---|
The article completely lacks reliable sources. | OK |
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way. | OK |
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid | OK |
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. | OK |
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. | OK |
The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations. | OK |
I note a certain choppiness in tone that comes from attempting to cover a huge topic in the space of an encyclopedia article that can be read in, say, fifteen minutes or so. I suspect that many of my criticisms will center around your attempting to compress too much information into too few words. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 06:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
General comments: Trying to cover, even in passing, all the important topics in such a vast field as condensed matter physics is impossible within a 34,000 character essay, so your choice of what to cover and what not to cover has necessarily been somewhat idiosyncratic. However, even after making allowances for the impossibility of covering everything in even a superficial fashion, I have issues on the adequacy of your coverage. As I interpret the article, the organizational principle underlying the different sections is as follows:
Without covering any subject in depth, your intent for this article appears mostly to be to provide a doorway to the subject by providing a directed guide to other articles on Wikipedia that cover selected topics in greater detail. It is more than a bare catalog of links, but less than a fully comprehensive review.
My biggest problem is the History section. As a broad survey, it misses a lot.
I am OK with the Theoretical and Experimental sections being somewhat pick-and-choose in their coverage. But the History section misses too much.
I don't blame you for missing a lot. However, in the following, I point out some topics whose omission seem inexcusable. It is possible that you will judge that some of the missing topics are too technical for the History section. If that is truly so, then they have to be covered in one of the later sections. Yes, several of the subjects that I note as missing in History are covered in later sections. Just see if there is a way to mention these topics in History (in context, of course) before covering them in greater detail later.
The Introduction needs to be written, and has been written, so that all literate readers are able to read and understand it. The History section has been written, and should continue to be be written so that most readers can get through it with a bit of work. These two sections are the most important, and need to fulfill their missions to the fullest extent possible. In the following, I give a number of recommendations for expanding the History section. You should be careful not to increase the technical burden on the reader in making your additions. Push any hard stuff into the Theoretical and Experimental sections.
Given that many readers will give up when they reach the Theoretical and Experimental sections, you should consider moving and re-writing the Applications section so that it stands as the third easy-to-read section after History.
I find disturbing the fact that many of the chosen figures appear to serve purely a decorative purpose, without being integrated into the text or having sufficient explanation to give the reader understanding.
Try moving this section up. The material in this section is all pretty easy reading. You need to let readers get to this interesting material before their eyes glaze over when they hit Theory and Experiment.
I need to see the History section providing a broad and accessible introduction to the major concepts of condensed matter physics, presenting the concepts in both historical and scientific context and tied together with a solid theme. Difficult concepts may be pushed out to the other sections, but try to maintain as much in History as possible. Given the amount that has been overlooked in History (even though I do see that in a number of cases the subjects are covered later), I anticipate at least a doubling or tripling in size of the History section would be necessary. Condensed matter physics currently stands at 34,000 characters, 4,000 of which is History. It should not be at all hard to expand just the History so that the article stands at 38,000–42,000 characters. - Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 02:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Your additions are looking pretty good so far! Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk · contribs) 04:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm starting to look the article over. This is a pretty huge subject that you're trying to cover in not so many words here! You've made a heroic effort to be comprehensive even if it's meant that you haven't been able to spare more than a few words for any one topic. I'll try to take that goal of yours into account in my review. The alternative, of course, is to focus on the most important topics at the expense of neglecting some. Both approaches have good and bad points to them. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 04:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Description | Rating |
---|---|
The article completely lacks reliable sources. | OK |
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way. | OK |
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid | OK |
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. | OK |
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. | OK |
The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations. | OK |
I note a certain choppiness in tone that comes from attempting to cover a huge topic in the space of an encyclopedia article that can be read in, say, fifteen minutes or so. I suspect that many of my criticisms will center around your attempting to compress too much information into too few words. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 06:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
General comments: Trying to cover, even in passing, all the important topics in such a vast field as condensed matter physics is impossible within a 34,000 character essay, so your choice of what to cover and what not to cover has necessarily been somewhat idiosyncratic. However, even after making allowances for the impossibility of covering everything in even a superficial fashion, I have issues on the adequacy of your coverage. As I interpret the article, the organizational principle underlying the different sections is as follows:
Without covering any subject in depth, your intent for this article appears mostly to be to provide a doorway to the subject by providing a directed guide to other articles on Wikipedia that cover selected topics in greater detail. It is more than a bare catalog of links, but less than a fully comprehensive review.
My biggest problem is the History section. As a broad survey, it misses a lot.
I am OK with the Theoretical and Experimental sections being somewhat pick-and-choose in their coverage. But the History section misses too much.
I don't blame you for missing a lot. However, in the following, I point out some topics whose omission seem inexcusable. It is possible that you will judge that some of the missing topics are too technical for the History section. If that is truly so, then they have to be covered in one of the later sections. Yes, several of the subjects that I note as missing in History are covered in later sections. Just see if there is a way to mention these topics in History (in context, of course) before covering them in greater detail later.
The Introduction needs to be written, and has been written, so that all literate readers are able to read and understand it. The History section has been written, and should continue to be be written so that most readers can get through it with a bit of work. These two sections are the most important, and need to fulfill their missions to the fullest extent possible. In the following, I give a number of recommendations for expanding the History section. You should be careful not to increase the technical burden on the reader in making your additions. Push any hard stuff into the Theoretical and Experimental sections.
Given that many readers will give up when they reach the Theoretical and Experimental sections, you should consider moving and re-writing the Applications section so that it stands as the third easy-to-read section after History.
I find disturbing the fact that many of the chosen figures appear to serve purely a decorative purpose, without being integrated into the text or having sufficient explanation to give the reader understanding.
Try moving this section up. The material in this section is all pretty easy reading. You need to let readers get to this interesting material before their eyes glaze over when they hit Theory and Experiment.
I need to see the History section providing a broad and accessible introduction to the major concepts of condensed matter physics, presenting the concepts in both historical and scientific context and tied together with a solid theme. Difficult concepts may be pushed out to the other sections, but try to maintain as much in History as possible. Given the amount that has been overlooked in History (even though I do see that in a number of cases the subjects are covered later), I anticipate at least a doubling or tripling in size of the History section would be necessary. Condensed matter physics currently stands at 34,000 characters, 4,000 of which is History. It should not be at all hard to expand just the History so that the article stands at 38,000–42,000 characters. - Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 02:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Your additions are looking pretty good so far! Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)