Nucleon magnetic moment 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: December 16, 2022. ( 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 Nucleon magnetic moment appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 January 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
no archives yet ( create) |
The proton magnetic moment article was mostly redundant with the neutron magnetic moment article, and those two topics are intimately related. It made no sense (eventually) to have separate articles for the two. So I have merged them (being bold, and noting a general apathy to my posts suggesting a merge). However, the neutron magnetic article was rated a "Good Article", and the combined article can no longer claim that status, IMO. The plan would be to let this article evolve/develop a bit more with the change, then request another review for Good Article status. Bdushaw ( talk) 11:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Bdushaw ( talk) 11:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Review to follow in due course. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The main problem with the article is a deficit of citations. Everything needs to be covered. So citations required:
Measurement:
Duplicate links:
See also:
Not convinced that all of these are useful. Bohr magneton, electron magnetic moment, neutron diffraction, antineuton and antiproton are already linked in the article. ( MOS:NOTSEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.) GAs have to conform to MOS:LAYOUT (Criterion 1b)
References:
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That one is the famous Pais, "Inward Bound" reference, a marvel. Done! Bdushaw ( talk) 12:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The Description section had a sentence that the magnetic forces were seven orders of magnitude smaller than the strong forces. The Reviewer above requested a citation for this statement; support for such a statement is difficult, because the statement is so basic/introductory that it is hard to find an explicit statement supporting it. I suspect one would need an undergraduate nuclear physics textbook; the two I had were not helpful, however. The references I have just barrel on with ignoring the neutron's magnetic moment (apparently everyone is already aware the magnetic forces are inconsequential!). Anyways, it occurred to me the "seven orders of magnitude" was not correct - I think that originally came from the neutron article. The point of it was that, at atomic dimensions, the Coulomb force was 7X weaker than the strong force, I believe. In our case the neutron's magnetic moment is 3 orders of magnitude less than the electron's, so an estimate of ten orders of magnitude smaller is more likely correct. I've gone with a generic "many orders of magnitude". We could compute it directly, of course, though that would be Original Research. The Physics Today citation is pretty good for supporting the point, though not exactly. Bdushaw ( talk) 17:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering what happened to the general notion of the pion cloud - that theory, while not working to account for the magnetic moments, was likely not entirely wrong. It turns out there are a number of recent papers that address the question of the contribution of the pion cloud as a correction to the magnetic moment computed from quarks, I believe. This topic is out of my jurisdiction, and perhaps getting into OR. Certainly more technical than I am willing to tackle. Nevertheless, there it is. One can see examples with a google search to pion cloud magnetic moment etc. Bdushaw ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 10:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Created by Bdushaw ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC).
Nucleon magnetic moment 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: December 16, 2022. ( 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 Nucleon magnetic moment appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 January 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
no archives yet ( create) |
The proton magnetic moment article was mostly redundant with the neutron magnetic moment article, and those two topics are intimately related. It made no sense (eventually) to have separate articles for the two. So I have merged them (being bold, and noting a general apathy to my posts suggesting a merge). However, the neutron magnetic article was rated a "Good Article", and the combined article can no longer claim that status, IMO. The plan would be to let this article evolve/develop a bit more with the change, then request another review for Good Article status. Bdushaw ( talk) 11:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Bdushaw ( talk) 11:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Review to follow in due course. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The main problem with the article is a deficit of citations. Everything needs to be covered. So citations required:
Measurement:
Duplicate links:
See also:
Not convinced that all of these are useful. Bohr magneton, electron magnetic moment, neutron diffraction, antineuton and antiproton are already linked in the article. ( MOS:NOTSEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.) GAs have to conform to MOS:LAYOUT (Criterion 1b)
References:
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That one is the famous Pais, "Inward Bound" reference, a marvel. Done! Bdushaw ( talk) 12:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The Description section had a sentence that the magnetic forces were seven orders of magnitude smaller than the strong forces. The Reviewer above requested a citation for this statement; support for such a statement is difficult, because the statement is so basic/introductory that it is hard to find an explicit statement supporting it. I suspect one would need an undergraduate nuclear physics textbook; the two I had were not helpful, however. The references I have just barrel on with ignoring the neutron's magnetic moment (apparently everyone is already aware the magnetic forces are inconsequential!). Anyways, it occurred to me the "seven orders of magnitude" was not correct - I think that originally came from the neutron article. The point of it was that, at atomic dimensions, the Coulomb force was 7X weaker than the strong force, I believe. In our case the neutron's magnetic moment is 3 orders of magnitude less than the electron's, so an estimate of ten orders of magnitude smaller is more likely correct. I've gone with a generic "many orders of magnitude". We could compute it directly, of course, though that would be Original Research. The Physics Today citation is pretty good for supporting the point, though not exactly. Bdushaw ( talk) 17:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering what happened to the general notion of the pion cloud - that theory, while not working to account for the magnetic moments, was likely not entirely wrong. It turns out there are a number of recent papers that address the question of the contribution of the pion cloud as a correction to the magnetic moment computed from quarks, I believe. This topic is out of my jurisdiction, and perhaps getting into OR. Certainly more technical than I am willing to tackle. Nevertheless, there it is. One can see examples with a google search to pion cloud magnetic moment etc. Bdushaw ( talk) 22:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 10:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Created by Bdushaw ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC).