- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:26, 31 January 2009 [1].
The Day the Violence Died
Did you know that the Simpsons episode "The Day the Violence Died" features Kirk Douglas and Suzanne Somers as guest stars? And that Lester and Eliza, older versions of Bart and Lisa Simpson, appear at the end of the episode?
- Images: One screenshot showing the two main characters of the episode, Bart and a newly introduced character, Chester J. Lampwick. Another screenshot shows Eliza and Lester, a different version of Lisa and Bart. The remaining two images are free.
- Sources: The references are straightforward, except perhaps a few that are only used for reviews of the episode—nothing controversial. These are: DVD Movie Guide, DVD Verdict, and DVD Times.
I have been working on this article for a few months now. It is my first television episode article, but nevertheless I think that all the bumps have been ironed out. Gary King ( talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Could you crop that Kirk Douglas pic to remove the "KIRK DOUGLAS" banner? Its just looks very odd, since that pic is only used to identify Douglas. indopug ( talk) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Featured articles are supposed to be examples of Wikipedia's best writing. This is all written in yada yada yada style—the eighteenth episode of the seventh season, Itchy and Scratchy show, the critics generally like it, so what? I won't change this to a support unless the article focuses on what is special about the episode, and finds something special enough to make the article interesting to the general reader. Looie496 ( talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article also talks about Kirk Douglas's involvement in the episode, which I consider to be pretty significant. Gary King ( talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Yada yada yada" isn't mentioned in
WP:WIAFA. –
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- (To Looie) On the contrary, the article should not *focus* on what makes the subject special. That would be providing undue weight. Now, should an article mention those things, and describe them without going into excessive detail? Definitely. I don't see what the problem is here, though. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in Simpsons episode articles at all, but I believe that the reason for Looie496's oppose is not backed up by the Featured Article criteria which does not require that an article has to focus on things which are "special". -- Novil Ariandis ( talk) 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I have to agree with Looie here and I'm puzzled by his critics. I'm not sure that yadayada is the best way to put it but let's face it: the content is very very thin. I don't particularly fault the authors: there's probably too little material out there to construct an article with any real depth. Most of the meta-commentary is about the controversial nature of the episode but it rests on pretty much nothing. Yes, one guy from the DVD Times labelled it as "controversial" but the rest of the article seems to take that bait and discuss that controversy as if it existed. But let's pause for a moment and ask: "what exactly is this controversy?" Two critics disagreed on how good the episode was? One critic said "yeah I liked some of it but not all of it"? That's not controversy, that's what happens everyday with critics and a film is not controversial because it got a thumbs up from Ebert and a thumbs down from Roeper. Then we have
- "In one of its jokes, Bart asks Homer for a large sum of money and Homer immediately pulls out his wallet. Oakley described the scene as "very controversial" among the show's producers; Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, in particular did not like it."
Now why exactly is that scene controversial? It seems like a pretty harmless gag and the controversy being referred to here seems to be that Groening didn't like it. Note that this controversy is between the show's producers and has nothing to do with the so-called controversy between the critics. The section on the episode's reception is based on a handful of reviews seemingly picked at random and this again shows that there's just not enough in-depth commentary out there to build an article that's not a collage of factoids. The last sentence of the article is a great example of this problem. Scholarly discussion of the episode probably took place during that class at Columbia but the only trace we have of that is the student's favourite quote. Until we have access to non-superficial coverage of the episode, I can't see how this can be considered as exemplifying Wiki's best.
- PS: I just took a quick look at some of the other FA Simpsons episodes. I suppose people will argue that this candidate is just as good as the other FAs. I'm not sure I want to debate that because frankly some of these should go to FAR... Nevertheless, the best of them definitely have scholarly analysis and commentary about the episode. For instance, see the "Themes" sections in
The Joy of Sect or
Lisa the Skeptic.
Pichpich (
talk) 02:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is indeed very little out there to work with for this episode's article, but we tried our best. A "Themes" section is always nice, but when there isn't enough information for one, it cannot be created; I'd say that most recently promoted episode FAs don't have one, such as "
The Other Woman". Regarding the controversial stuff, there only seems to be a few mentions of controversy in the article, which seems to be the parts of the article that you are mostly focusing on. After reading your comment, I get the feeling that it is essentially just saying that the article can never become an FA because there isn't enough information? I can remove the university statement, if that helps; I think the article has enough reviews as it is. That information was originally included before I found other reviews that I could use for the article.
Gary King (
talk) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- A Google Books search reveals
slim pickings.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- When put it quotes,
it only returns 24 results, all of which I had already gone through before when writing this article.
Gary King (
talk) 03:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I am saying that the article can't become an FA for now. I'm not asking for information to be created, I'm just asking for a calm realization that this information doesn't exist. This plagues the article in many ways: there's the yadayada symptom and there's the "let's say the episode is controversial" symptom. The first is the result of scarcity of content with any depth, the second is the result of trying too hard to mask that scarcity. Some subjects simply shouldn't be featured articles and standards of content depth should be maintained. And lest I be thought of as a pop culture snob, just compare this article with the FA
Homer Simpson: it's not in the same league. Compare, say, the quality of the references. In The Day the Violence Died, the opinion of critic Colin Jacobson (reference 12) is used thrice. How deep is that opinion? On my browser
it takes five lines. The one sentence quote of critic Jennifer Malkowski (reference 14) is actually the sole sentence she ever wrote about the episode
[2]. Speaking of which, who's Jennifer Malkowski? You can see her profile
here. Note this funny little detail: everyone contributing on DVDverdict is facetiously referred to as a "judge"
[3] but the references in the article attribute the work to "Judge Malkowski". Ditto with reference 16: the two line quote of Dave Foster actually constitutes Mr Foster's entire take on the episode. Moreover (I just found out) he does not say that he considers the episode as controversial. He says that his singling out of this episode as subpar is likely to be controversial. And correct me if I'm wrong but this Dave Foster is not one of
the better known David Fosters. I'm not even sure why dvdmg, dvdverdict or dvdtimes should be considered as more authoritative sources than say your basic Simpsons fan site. So I'm sorry for being blunt but no, there's no way for me to envision this being a featured article any time soon.
Pichpich (
talk) 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you opposing because there is not enough available information, or because the reference quality is subpar?
Dabomb87 (
talk) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm getting to the point where I'm not even sure people read what I write. Let me try this again. The article is way below FA standards. It is short on content. A quarter of the article is a plot summary. Much of the discussion not related to the plot is based on a dubious notion of controversy. Many of the references hardly qualify as reliable. At least one name in the references is incorrect. The article misrepresents a quote to fit the "controversy" axis. The article has no depth, in part because a whole section is based on references with no depth. The article includes a photo of Kirk Douglas which was taken 50 years prior to production.
Pichpich (
talk) 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Short on content" isn't really helpful. Is the article not comprehensive, per the 1b criterion? The plot summary only takes up 18% of the article's prose. The controversy stuff is only the first paragraph of the Production section. Ealdgyth already checked out the references in this article. I fixed the name, the quote, and the image to one of 1978, so we're inching a bit closer to the present (all three quite trivial things to use as a reason to oppose). Gary King ( talk) 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm getting to the point where I'm not even sure people read what I write. Let me try this again. The article is way below FA standards. It is short on content. A quarter of the article is a plot summary. Much of the discussion not related to the plot is based on a dubious notion of controversy. Many of the references hardly qualify as reliable. At least one name in the references is incorrect. The article misrepresents a quote to fit the "controversy" axis. The article has no depth, in part because a whole section is based on references with no depth. The article includes a photo of Kirk Douglas which was taken 50 years prior to production.
Pichpich (
talk) 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you opposing because there is not enough available information, or because the reference quality is subpar?
Dabomb87 (
talk) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I am saying that the article can't become an FA for now. I'm not asking for information to be created, I'm just asking for a calm realization that this information doesn't exist. This plagues the article in many ways: there's the yadayada symptom and there's the "let's say the episode is controversial" symptom. The first is the result of scarcity of content with any depth, the second is the result of trying too hard to mask that scarcity. Some subjects simply shouldn't be featured articles and standards of content depth should be maintained. And lest I be thought of as a pop culture snob, just compare this article with the FA
Homer Simpson: it's not in the same league. Compare, say, the quality of the references. In The Day the Violence Died, the opinion of critic Colin Jacobson (reference 12) is used thrice. How deep is that opinion? On my browser
it takes five lines. The one sentence quote of critic Jennifer Malkowski (reference 14) is actually the sole sentence she ever wrote about the episode
[2]. Speaking of which, who's Jennifer Malkowski? You can see her profile
here. Note this funny little detail: everyone contributing on DVDverdict is facetiously referred to as a "judge"
[3] but the references in the article attribute the work to "Judge Malkowski". Ditto with reference 16: the two line quote of Dave Foster actually constitutes Mr Foster's entire take on the episode. Moreover (I just found out) he does not say that he considers the episode as controversial. He says that his singling out of this episode as subpar is likely to be controversial. And correct me if I'm wrong but this Dave Foster is not one of
the better known David Fosters. I'm not even sure why dvdmg, dvdverdict or dvdtimes should be considered as more authoritative sources than say your basic Simpsons fan site. So I'm sorry for being blunt but no, there's no way for me to envision this being a featured article any time soon.
Pichpich (
talk) 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- When put it quotes,
it only returns 24 results, all of which I had already gone through before when writing this article.
Gary King (
talk) 03:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- A Google Books search reveals
slim pickings.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is indeed very little out there to work with for this episode's article, but we tried our best. A "Themes" section is always nice, but when there isn't enough information for one, it cannot be created; I'd say that most recently promoted episode FAs don't have one, such as "
The Other Woman". Regarding the controversial stuff, there only seems to be a few mentions of controversy in the article, which seems to be the parts of the article that you are mostly focusing on. After reading your comment, I get the feeling that it is essentially just saying that the article can never become an FA because there isn't enough information? I can remove the university statement, if that helps; I think the article has enough reviews as it is. That information was originally included before I found other reviews that I could use for the article.
Gary King (
talk) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Image review - Fair use images meet WP:NFCC and the other two images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit ( talk) 02:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments — File:Kirk Douglas.png: there is no doubt the movie (and hence its screenshots) is in the public domain; however, is it appropriate to refer to a 1952 image of the actor (36 years old then), when it is his 80-year-old self (whose appearance differs from his younger screen persona) who provided the guest voice in this cartoon episode? Jappalang ( talk) 04:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are other images available of Kirk, but I think this is the best one. For example, File:Kirk Douglas 1978.jpg is good, but it is really small. I have added a "seen here in 1952" note in the image caption just in case. Gary King ( talk) 15:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'll make no bones that I'm not a fan of Simpsons FAs. Not because of how many there are; instead, because they rarely meet the criteria. Pagesize.js gives the size of this article at 18.5KB. My baseline for comprehensiveness of episode articles is , where l is the length of the episode in minutes, and s is the size of the article. This article is currently 1.5KB below my baseline. The Simpsons is one of the most influential television programmes in history. It must be possible to write more than is currently here for this episode. Sceptre ( talk) 04:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:08, 25 January 2009 [28].
Vector space
- Nominator(s): Jakob.scholbach ( talk)
I'd like to nominate this article for FAC. It has passed its good article nomination, has had a peer review, whose comments have since been included. I believe the article to meet the FA criteria. Principal contributors in terms of edit counts are myself and Silly rabbit. Thank you for the review.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob.scholbach ( talk • contribs) 15:52, January 17, 2009
Opposeper criterion 1.(c). Just looking at the lead:- ... tuples of real numbers such as Euclidean vectors ... – and " Euclidean vector" is about physical vectors. The electric field vector at the point one metre above my centre of mass as of 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) is not a triple of numbers per se. (It can be specified by a triple of numbers if you choose a basis). BTW, don't assume that everyone knows what the heck a tuple is. This is the second paragraph of the lead. See WP:NOT PAPERS, point 5 (and note that it is a policy, not a guideline).
- ... they are completely specified by a single
number called
dimension. I think this is supposed to mean that all vector spaces with the same dimension are isomorphic to each other; but that's not how someone who doesn't already know this would understand this sentence.
And, even with my interpretation, I think this only applies to finite-dimensional vector spaces.- FYI, it applies to all vector spaces.
Algebraist 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- (I'm striking that out then. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC) BTW, out of curiosity, how does one prove that? Does one need the axiom of choice? --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
- Yes. The statement that every vector space has a dimension is ZF-equivalent to full AC. Algebraist 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- (I'm striking that out then. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC) BTW, out of curiosity, how does one prove that? Does one need the axiom of choice? --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
- FYI, it applies to all vector spaces.
Algebraist 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I won't even bother to finish reading it. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do I understand you right, Army1987, that you see a factual error in the lead section? By the guideline you cite yourself, the lead should be an accessible overview, detailed explanations on choices of bases should (and do) come in the body of the article. While Euclidean vectors are ad hoc a physical concept, they do convey the right understanding of (mathematical) vectors and vector spaces, and were indeed one of the historical roots of them, so I think it is appropriate to mention them at this point.
- As for "they are completely specified by a single
number called
dimension." I fail to see what possible wrong intuition could be implied by that wording, but perhaps a layman reviewer could tell?
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- @ Euclidean vectors: I have reworded this a little. Notice, though, that the corresp. article says "In three dimensional Euclidean space (or R3), vectors are identified with triples of numbers corresponding to the Cartesian coordinates of the endpoint". Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 18:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps write, instead of "vector spaces are completely specified by a single number called their dimension" (which is hard to "visualize" by a non-mathematician), write "for each natural number n and each field K, all vector spaces over K having dimension n are isomorphic, i.e the "same". In particular, this implies that all vector spaces over a particular field of scalars, are completely specified by a single number called the dimension.". --
PS
T 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- That wouldn't cover the infinite-dimensional case. Algebraist 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the wording of the first sentence I cited implies that Euclidean vectors are a particular type of tuples of natural numbers, while the reverse is true. As for the "infinite-dimensional case", in the current version "number" does link to
cardinal number, although anybody who doesn't follow that link won't consider infinity to be a number. (If a way to address these issues occurs to me, I'll point it out.) --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 02:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I have reworded it to avoid the implication made you are referring to. As for the possibly infinite dimension: I also think that lay readers won't think of infinity (or even a particular type of it, countable/uncountable) as a number. However, it would be less correct to write, say: "They are specified by a number called dimension, which may be infinite.", because this implies that all spaces of infinite dimension are isomorphic, which is not true. At the moment I don't see a good way of a) not telling what a
cardinal number is (as opposed to the every-day meaning of number) and b) making a correct statement. We could just remove that part of the sentence. What do you think is best?
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- For now I've just unhidden the word "cardinal" from that link, but it should still be made clearer. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 11:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I chose to remove that bit of information. As I saw when re-reading the "motivation and definition" section, the possibility of being infinite is mentioned, and the precise statement (i.e. mentioning "cardinality" is given below), so this bit of information may be omitted in the lead.
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your recent change, which is better than what we had before. I trimmed it down a bit. I hope that settles this matter? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I chose to remove that bit of information. As I saw when re-reading the "motivation and definition" section, the possibility of being infinite is mentioned, and the precise statement (i.e. mentioning "cardinality" is given below), so this bit of information may be omitted in the lead.
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- For now I've just unhidden the word "cardinal" from that link, but it should still be made clearer. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 11:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I have reworded it to avoid the implication made you are referring to. As for the possibly infinite dimension: I also think that lay readers won't think of infinity (or even a particular type of it, countable/uncountable) as a number. However, it would be less correct to write, say: "They are specified by a number called dimension, which may be infinite.", because this implies that all spaces of infinite dimension are isomorphic, which is not true. At the moment I don't see a good way of a) not telling what a
cardinal number is (as opposed to the every-day meaning of number) and b) making a correct statement. We could just remove that part of the sentence. What do you think is best?
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've struck out the "Oppose" as the lead has been improved. If I have time to take a more careful look at the rest of the article, I'll decide whether to support. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - The section on vector bundles is good but has some flaws. For example, to explain why the Mobius line bundle is different from the cylinder globally (i.e why the bundle is non-trivial), the section refers to
orientable surfaces. While this is OK if you are dealing with smooth bundles, it is not in this case. Orientability is a property of differentiable manifolds and since "looks like" in the image caption links to
homeomorphism, you are not in actual fact explaining why this is a trivial bundle (homeomorphisms do not necessarily preserve orientability). In effect, orientability only distinguishes differentiable manifolds but not topological spaces that are also differentiable manifolds (and I think you are dealing with the category of topological spaces here). Some parts of the section have to be rewritten. Note that, it is indeed true that globally the Mobius strip is not homeomorphic to the cylinder but the current explanation is not correct. --
PS
T 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- One can define orientability as a purely topological property of manifolds. Orientability#Topological definitions mentions some ways of doing this. Algebraist 10:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- No. You might want to read the article Algebraist is referring to. It says (correctly) "A compact n-manifold M is orientable if and only if the top homology group, , is isomorphic to ". A similar statement holds for non-compact manifolds, where on has to consider
(co)homology with compact support. Homology groups are a purely topological invariant, i.e., given a homeomorphism M → N, the groups are isomorphic. Therefore the statement in the article is right.
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 15:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I myself work in homology theory (please don't attack (in the second last sentence you implied more than just "I don't know what a topological invariant is")). It is just some parts of differential topology which I am not familiar with. I might be confused but isn't it true that the map f(x, y) = (−x, y) is a homeomorphism of the plane, whereas it has negative Jacobian determinant and therefore is not orientation preserving? --
PS
T 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, homeomorphisms need not preserve orientation, but they do preserve orientability. Algebraist 22:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I myself work in homology theory (please don't attack (in the second last sentence you implied more than just "I don't know what a topological invariant is")). It is just some parts of differential topology which I am not familiar with. I might be confused but isn't it true that the map f(x, y) = (−x, y) is a homeomorphism of the plane, whereas it has negative Jacobian determinant and therefore is not orientation preserving? --
PS
T 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- No. You might want to read the article Algebraist is referring to. It says (correctly) "A compact n-manifold M is orientable if and only if the top homology group, , is isomorphic to ". A similar statement holds for non-compact manifolds, where on has to consider
(co)homology with compact support. Homology groups are a purely topological invariant, i.e., given a homeomorphism M → N, the groups are isomorphic. Therefore the statement in the article is right.
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 15:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've been watching this thread. In partial defense of PST, I would note that at Orientability#Topological definitions, two of the definitions are somewhat dubious here. The first says a surface is not orientable if there is an embedded Moebius band. The second says that transition functions preserve orientation. Both rather beg the question! However Jakob has centred the point that this is a topological invariant, even if it is hard to make that intuitively clear. Consequently that would clearly be the wrong way to explain the issue in this article. The current article doesn't attempt such an explanation and I am happy with the current text. Geometry guy 23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment (I don't know the best way to express my opinion without sounding too critical. Please know that all I want to accomplish by this post is to give some feedback.) While the article is well developed (in fact, very well-developed), it feels very short in many important points or facts: categorical point of view (a sentence is nearly enough), 1st, 2nd (and 3rd?) isomorphism theorems, their roles in homological algebras, why historically algebraists preferred to study rings or fields instead of vector spaces, important examples of vector spaces over fields other than real or complex, rank-nullity theorem, algebras (as generalization of vector spaces), application to physics (mostly in forms of Hilbert spaces), roles of vector spaces in the study of division algebras skew-fields, meaning and significance of basis changes (for example we are often interested in how two vector spaces are isomorphic not just isomorphic) relationship between annihilators and orthogonal complement, applications of duality in linear algebra (e.g., min-max principle, not only ones in functional analysis), a viewpoint of a vector space as an abelian Lie algebra, geometrical issues such as convexity with connection to dimensionality. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuyaMurata ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments and, BTW, absolutely no need to apologize!
- I have two general responses to your points: First, I have to say what you are probably already aware of, that the article has a limited total length. With this in mind, and with the aim to give reasonable amount (i.e., sufficiently to be able to explain things briefly, not just mention them) of space to must-have topics, it is difficult to include everything that comes to mind. Second, esp. where applications are concerned: in some sense most mathematics, esp. most applied mathematics can more or less reasonably be formulated in terms of vector spaces. I think the article has to focus on applications etc. where mainly (or only) the vector space structure of some given entity is used or studied. Using this guideline, topics effectively talking about polynomial rings, say, should be treated very briefly here or even not at all.
- categorical point of view: The article says "The existence of kernels and images is part of the statement that the category of vector spaces (over a fixed field F) is an abelian category." What else do you think is important? I personally think the category of v.sp. is of comparatively little importance, compared to, say, the category of modules over some ring, (both for this article and for math in general) since it is so simple. One could think about mentioning semisimplicity, but I'm not sure that is a core piece of information.
- Is reworded and slightly expanded. I think that's as much as we can afford. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Isomorphism theorems: we do have the 1st one. I'll think of a rewording so as to allude to the other ones.
- Done. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Role of vsp in homological algebra: what do you have in mind, specifically?
- Historical interest in rings vs. vsp: I have to say I'm not historically versed enough to even make sense of that point. At least to the modern understanding, as it is, vector spaces are of a pretty much different flavor than rings or fields, right? Please expound a bit...
- Vsp over other fields than R or C. What do you think of?
- rank-nullity: well, we have the first isomorphism theorem, which is the same thing. I'll try to reword that part (also w.r.t the 2nd and 3rd iso thm.).
- Done. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- algebras: there is a whole section on that. What do you miss specifically?
- applications to physics/Hilbert spaces: likewise (see the final paragraph in the Hilbert space section)
- basis change: OK. that's a bit short. I'll expand that a bit.
- First draft done (in the section on linear maps). I'll revisit later. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've also added an illustration depicting different choices of bases. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 14:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- division algebras: I think about how to add a sentence to the algebra section.
- I have added a statement about f.d. real division algebras (in the section on vector bundles, after K-theory). Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- annihilators & orthogonal complement: I think that does not belong here, I would put that to inner product or bilinear form.
- applications in linear algebra: that sounds reasonable
- I have added a word about the minimax theorem. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- vector spaces as abelian Lie algebras: Do you mean "[x, y] := 0"? I don't think that's an important piece of information here. Where is that relevant? If anywhere, I'd put that to Lie algebra.
- convexity: perhaps that should go to topological vector space? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment
- I've made some comments about the reciproqual vector spaces in the peer review that haven't been adressed. You might want to look into that. I may or may not opine later, but not having a section on the peciproqual vector spaces is a somewhat major issue.
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics} 06:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Somehow your comment in the PR went unnoticed by me. Sorry about that. I'll put a sentence about that into the Fourier section, perhaps alluding to the general principle behind the Fourier transform. (A section is clearly more than we can afford).
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have added a sentence about that, together with its mathematical explanation, Pontryagin duality. All right? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Somehow your comment in the PR went unnoticed by me. Sorry about that. I'll put a sentence about that into the Fourier section, perhaps alluding to the general principle behind the Fourier transform. (A section is clearly more than we can afford).
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This isn't a particularly esoteric mathematical concept; it ought to be possible to explain it to laymen in the lead much, much better than we do now. I realise that such leads are not uncommon in mathematical articles, but, per WP:LEAD, they have no right to be, and we ought to at least make an attempt to explain it in a way that, say, an A-level mathematics student, or first year university student could understand. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 06:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I share your wish to make the article esp. the lead as accessible as possible. The following reviewer gives some concrete points which I will address. Could you please point out other parts of the lead or elsewhere where you think accessibility is not as good as possible? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The first section of the lead is now better. I realize that the following ones do contain technical terms like "analytic geometry" or "matrices", but I think we can't avoid these totally. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's look at the first illustration, as I think it shows one of the problems with the article. If you know what it's doing, it's clear. If you don't, you won't understand vector addition or scalar multiplication after looking at it. A much better way to illustrate it might be show v. Show w. Show v+w as w coming off of the endpoint of v. Show 2w as 2 seperate ws, one after another.
- For these kind of esoteric articles, you really need someone with a decent background, but little knowledge of the specific concepts that can ask you questions and force you to clarify as much as possible. I don't think it's at quite that level yet.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the illustration does show two copies of w, and from looking at the image, it should be clear (without background, I hope) that the new arrow is twice as long as the old one (In addition I reworded "scaled" in the image caption to "stretched"). Likewise the image does show a (faint) copy of w which is appended at the end of v and the sum is the diagonal of the parallelogram constructed this way. I fail to see how that could be clearer. (You might object that the faint copies of w and v used for the parallelograms don't carry arrowheads, but this is simply because the arrowheads would overlap and it would be hard to distinguish what goes on). Additionally to that illustration, we (now) do have more illustrations (in the motivation section) that explain the matter once more (and giving the explanation of the constructions in words). (Also, there are subarticles on vector addition and scalar multiplication. They could (and should) be better, but this is a different story). I stand ready to be corrected, but I feel the reader has to have a certain willingness to think about what might be new to her/him, and to accept an "esoteric article" like this as an invitation à la danse (macabre? ;), not the dance lesson (including instructor) itself. Jakob.scholbach ( talk)
14:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. In line with the above, I'd like to say that the objective of a lead section is not (and cannot be, IMO) to make the topic understandable to the last bit, but give an overview. More details are to come (and do come, as pointed out above) in the body. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 14:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:LEAD: "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.", and WP:NOT PAPERS: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field." Seriously. We're not talking about quantum gravity. It is completely possible to explain what a vector space is in a way that the average junior high school student could understand (provided he cared about it), contains no lies, and is no longer than four paragraphs. Probably such a junior high school student already uses the concept "subconsciously" (see my comment of 15:24, 21 January 2009, below); he just doesn't know it's called this way. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- (<--)I'm aware of these guidelines and share their intentions. But, perhaps, let's not dig our heels in guidelines and their exegesis. Rather, where precisely does the lead tease the reader or does not explain important facts? Does it contain any lies?
- The lead section image is a (pretty brief and in several senses sketchy) explanation of the two operations. Explaining them in more detail and with more care later is perfectly appropriate (and without alternative). Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose For the same reason as Shoemaker's Holiday. I think the lead should be readable by a reader coming just out or still being in a high school. The first paragraph of the lead for example:
<quote>A vector space is a mathematical structure formed by a collection of objects, called vectors, that may be scaled and added. In a vector space these two operations adhere to a number of axioms that generalize common properties of pairs and triples of real numbers, and of vectors in the plane or three-dimensional Euclidean space. </quote>
- "scaled" should be "multiplied by a number".
- "generalize common properties of pairs and triples of real numbers" should be "generalize common properties of numbers"
- "vectors in the plane or three-dimensional Euclidean space" should be "vectors in geometry"
Of course footnote and link to the exact mathematical meaning can be added but the non mathematician should not be repelled by the lead.
- The first picture is awful. The caption carries much too much information which is not needed at this point. The vectors are missing arrows. I prefer fig 2 but maybe without coordinate axis.
- The first example presented in the example section should be a very simple and wellknown example such as vectors in physics (addition of velocities or forces) or in 2D geometry. That the first example mixes functions and fields is a very bad idea. (Fields are simple for those who know what it is but exhausting for the layman which has to click on the link to understand what it could be).
Vb 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.168.116.224 (
talk)
- Strongly disagree with the above comments Let me note that you must know what a vector is before you learn about vector spaces. If you don't know what a vector is, I don't see the point in learning about vector spaces, anyhow! I agree that university students should understand it but certainly not high school students who are not in their final year. In my experience, I have seen people who simply don't understand the "abstract concept" of a vector. Indeed, it is something different compared to what people would think, i.e counterintuitive, because heaps of people think mathematics is centered about number theory. On the other hand, vectors are a very natural concept. So for someone to understand them, they shouldn't sit at the computer and read the screen blankly: certainly not. They should take the time for thinking about what is written in the article and connect it with their prior knowledge. Learning to think is also one of those concepts that must be conquered at some point; being introduced to vector spaces may teach this important skill.
- On the same note, "scaled" should not be "multiplied by a number". Using the latter may lead to confusions because many people think that the only numbers are integers; some know of the existence of complex numbers: but there are other fields. We must not "put down" the generality of vector spaces. Similarly, I disagree with your second point. Many people (including those who know calculus) think that R is not a vector space. They simply think "space" must be something complex: i.e something having high dimension. So "pairs and triples of real numbers" may allow them to relate to their prior knowledge of vectors. Again, I don't really like the idea of representing vectors as arrows. Although in a sense, the represent direction, we could write them in bold face. Note that using the convention of "arrows" will lead to difficulties when we consider an arbitrary field over itself. Because in this case, an element of the vector space is a vector, iff it is a scalar. Your last point is already taken care of. Examples of fields are given, and it is also noted that the scalars belong to the field. I think that it all one needs to know.
- The 2D geometry example is in the 'motivation' section. Do you think it's out of place there? Algebraist 09:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Response to 213.168.116.224: thanks for your points. I'll try to adress them as much as possible, without removing or falsifying facts. For example, "generalize common properties of numbers" does not give the right intuition (also not for a high-school person). I'll respond in more detail soon. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The whole first section of the lead is reworked. Do you think this is OK now? I will brush over the motivation section next, focussing on concrete physical examples (forces or velocities). Also the lead section image is now clearer. (I uploaded File:Vector_addition_and_scaling.svg, but somehow the labels of the arrows have black background. Does anybody know how to fix this? I used inkscape.) Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the problem. I had run into this before and was supplied with the fix: there's a problem with text sometimes, so you need to convert all the text to a path (in Inkscape, go to "Path -> Object to path"). I also fixed the scalar multiplication symbol.
RobHar (
talk) 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The motivation section is now rewritten and should be accessible. Please check it out. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 07:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the problem. I had run into this before and was supplied with the fix: there's a problem with text sometimes, so you need to convert all the text to a path (in Inkscape, go to "Path -> Object to path"). I also fixed the scalar multiplication symbol.
RobHar (
talk) 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to respond here to Point-set topologist. I am a math teacher in high school and the topic "vector space" has a short section in the math book we use. The topic is therefore not only usefull to univesity students but also at high school. At this level, even if the students 'should' know what a real number is, it is often the case that they dislike to use such term they consider pedantic. The same is true for Euclidian geometry. Today students don't even know Euclide at his axioms but all still do Euclidean geometry without knowing it: they simply call it geometry. Thus I believe it is superfluous to tell the reader this is here Euclidean geometry. However a foot note or a link such as geometry would be enough. I think the arrows should not be used for labelling vectors but in the first picture arrowheads should be used! (just as in Fig. 2) Vb ( talk) 13:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- To Point-set topologist: But this is the article about vectors in general. Vector (mathematics) redirects here, as it would make little sense to have a separate article for that. So, as for "you must know what a vector is before you learn about vector spaces", it's this article that should explain "what a vector is", at least until someone creates a separate article Vector (mathematics) (which would be quite pointless IMO). As for "scaled" vs "multiplied by a number", the current version of the lead has the same problem, too. But I'm trying to address it. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I want to note that there are intelligent high school students who would appreciate the notion of a vector space. But most do not. You see, some high school students do maths for the sake of doing mathematics and certainly would think of vectors as doing "calculations". Indeed, in most high schools, vectors are merely added and multiplied (dot/inner product) without actually understanding them. Of course, they are also taught in the context of physics. But vectors are not physics. They are certainly used in physics but we should not give the wrong impression. As you are a high school teacher, you will probably know high school students better than me (I haven't seen the animals since I was at school :)) but I am a bit dubious that a high school textbook has a short section on vector spaces. Could you note the name of the book? Does it refer to fields (the algebraic structure)? Not that I am saying that students can't handle this, but I would be interested to know the book.
- Without knowing about vectors in 2-space or 3-space, the concept of a vector space is not very intuitive. I.e, you won't get a feel for vector spaces. That is what I meant.
- The book we use here in Germany is the very standard Lambacher-Schweizer Analytische Geometrie und lineare Algebra. Examples of vector spaces are presented which are not (as in the rest of the book) Euclidean vectors (although the word Euclidean vector never appears in the book). The example I discuss with my student is the space of polynoms with a given grade. Other space are cited but they are in fact simply R^n with n>3. I think the student who wants to learn bout this topic must not be a paricularly intelligent one but simply a pupil who wants to prepare a talk in order to improve his participation note! This student does not really remember what is "commutativity" or what is the difference between a real and a rational number even if he uses this concept in the day-to-day practice. About the recent modification of the lead. The first Figure and its caption is now good and explain quite well what is meant by adding and scaling. In my opinion the wording "multiplied by a number" should replace "scaled" and not be added to it. However I think that, now that the picture has been improved, the word "scaled" may be good enough. On the other hand, I agree with the comments which appeared on the talk page and think that putting the physics examples in the first paragraph of the lead enhance much too much the importance of this POV on he meaning of vectors. What I suggest is to put this example (which should be much expanded) as the first example within the example section. Moreover I think the interpretation of vectors as translations is missing in the example section. Please also refrain to use the word Field in the first example. Of course a field is a structure which is simpler than vector space but not for pupils! Vb ( talk) 10:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I have some doubts about the history -- it doesn't match the way I learned it. As I understood it, the basic motivation for the concept was a desire to be able to do arithmetic in Euclidean N-space. The first attempts tried to take off from the fact that complex numbers allow arithmetic in 2-space. However, attempts to generalize complex arithmetic to higher dimensions broke down on the fact that there is no natural multiplication operation. Hamilton's quaternions were a way to make it work for N=4, but gave up on some critical properties and still didn't generalize. Finally in the late 1800s mathematicians realized that the proper thing to do is to give up on a VxV->V type of multiplication, and settle for two other types of multiplication, scalar mult and the inner product. Looie496 ( talk) 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Although the modern notion of a vector in physics owes much to Hamilton, Gibbs, and Heaviside, the notion of a vector space does not appear to share exactly the same lineage. Hermann Grassmann first introduced the general notion in the same year as Hamilton introduced his quaternions, but it was several decades until Peano and Whitehead ultimately formalized Grassmann's notion of a vector space. My understanding of the genesis of the modern idea of a vector space comes chiefly from the historical notes to Bourbaki's Algebra. To quote: "Peano, one of the creators of the axiomatic method and also one of the first mathematicians fully to appreciate the work of Grassmann, gives as early as 1888 (...) the axiomatic definition of vector spaces (...) over the field of real numbers ..." siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Silly rabbit; which also concurs with the historical sources cited in the section. Looie, can you present a reference that backs up your point? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm speaking from memory—but
quaternion#History gives an account that more or less matches what I wrote, I think.
Looie496 (
talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- What you wrote (and what is in the quaternion article) is correct as far as it goes, but as Silly rabbit points out, that's the history of vectors as in physics and vector calculus. The history of vectors as in algebraic vector spaces is somewhat different. Algebraist 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm speaking from memory—but
quaternion#History gives an account that more or less matches what I wrote, I think.
Looie496 (
talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
To PST re "Without knowing about vectors in 2-space or 3-space, the concept of a vector space is not very intuitive.": I am playing a strategy game in which you have four kinds of resources: wood, clay, iron and wheat. It is quite intuitive that you can add "100 units of wood, 50 clay, 23 iron and 75 wheat" and "15 wood, 40 clay, 70 iron and 30 wheat" to get "175 wood, 90 clay, 93 iron and 105 wheat", or multiply the latter by two to get "30 wood, 80 clay, 140 iron, and 60 wheat". This is not really a vector space because you can only have an integer amount of any resource, but it wouldn't be any less intuitive if you could. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comments on the lead. After being asked to comment on the lead, I read the article quite closely this afternoon. WP:LEAD states: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." In articles on advanced mathematics (and even though vector spaces are extremely standard mathematics, the abstraction involved is advanced), achieving both of these goals in four paragraphs, while remaining as accessible as possible is a very difficult task. However, Wikipedia is not a textbook: it is not the purpose of the lead to teach readers what a vector space is, but to whet their appetite to learn more.
- At the moment the lead does not adequately summarize the article: it focuses unnecessarily on forces, and on applications in analysis, without covering adequately the fundamental role of vector spaces in linear algebra. I realise that my view may contradict the view of some other editors, who are concentrating on making the lead easier to understand for the lay reader. That is a painful aspect of FAC: it is impossible to please everyone.
- However, as a positive suggestion, should this FAC fail, one solution to the difficulty of both summarizing the article and providing an accessible introduction is to spin out the lead (summary style) to an " Introduction to vector spaces" article (or possibly an " Introduction to linear algebra"). This would make it easier to make the lead an encyclopedic summary of the topic , while providing an entrypoint for motivated high school students and similar readers. Geometry guy 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comments on the prose. In the spirit that FAC is a painful experience, the main thing that struck me on my read-through is that the prose is woeful. Sorry, I should say there is lots of good stuff, but there are patches that are painful to read, even for someone who is extremely familiar with vector spaces and knows what the prose is trying to say. I found myself banging my head in a
Quasimodo-like experience of "The prose! The prose!". This may be as painful for article editors to read as it is for me to say. So, let me add that tremendous work has gone into this article and it is well on its way to being featured, following the path of
Group (mathematics), which was featured thanks to the drive of the same main editor. Bravo! I wish I had the time and energy to do as much to help. I would be happy to copyedit the article, but realistically, I can't do that for at least two weeks, so let me highlight some issues. In any case I'd rather copyedit the article in a minor way rather than make big changes.
- Encyclopedic language is not flowery. I can see that considerable effort has been made to use encyclopedic rather than textbook prose. However, encyclopedic language is neither flowery nor convoluted. Don't say "keystone" when you mean "central", "in the guise of" when you mean "as", "employed" when you mean "used". "Achieved" is shorter than "accomplished" and "provide" is more widely understood than "furnish". Other flowery usages include "envisaged", "encompasses", "conception", ...
- Use bland adverbs sparingly. "Historically", "today", "actually", "notably", "usually", "particularly", "especially", "essentially", "completely", "roughly", "simply". These can often be omitted, or replaced by prose which centres the point.
- Don't split infinitives needlessly. Sometimes they need to be split, but in most cases they don't. For instance, I would replace "To simultaneously encompass", by "To cover" or "To include".
- Avoid editorial opinion. Whenever you use an adjective of opinion, or comment on the importance of something, it is helpful to ask the question "according to whom?". Then you can decide whether to provide a source, or to rephrase. Adjectives used here include "important", "crucial", "frequent", "fundamental", "suitable", "useful", ...
- Avoid long noun phrases. They tend to lead to bad prose: "Resolving a periodic function into a sum of trigonometric functions forms a Fourier series, a technique much used in physics and engineering." is an example.
- Omit needless words. "certain" is usually not needed and "call for the ability to decide" is wordy.
- Use a consistent English variant: I see both "analog" and "honor" (American) and "idealised" (British).
- Finally, resist the temptation to tell the reader how to look at the subject. This happens at the beginning of quite a few sections:
- "Vector spaces have manifold applications as they occur in many circumstances, namely wherever functions with values in some field are involved."
- "'Measuring' vectors is a frequent need"
- "Bases reveal the structure of vector spaces in a concise way"
- "The counterpart to subspaces are quotient vector spaces." (Only makes sense to those who already know what it means.)
- Geometry guy 23:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Further comments.
- Why does the history stop at c. 1920? The relations to set theory could be discussed here, as could modern developments in homological algebra, Hilbert spaces (quantum mechanics), Banach spaces (Gowers).
- The category of vector spaces is not boring, nor well understood, even if the isomorphism classes of objects are. See Quiver (mathematics).
- The determinant of a linear map is not defined, but used.
- The motivation section is poorly written: if "force" is a motivation, why not explain that addition of vectors corresponds to combining forces?
- Hamel and Schauder bases are not clearly delineated. Too much effort is expended making the definition of Hamel basis apply in the infinite dimensional case. Further, refering to the existence of Hamel bases (and hence the axiom of choice) as "fact" is point of view.
- Despite all my complaints, however, I must say that Wikipedia readers will be extremely fortunate to find such a comprehensive article on such an important concept. Geometry guy 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Withdrawal of the nomination: I would take the opportunity to thank again everybody involved in the recent development of the article, be it in form of critial comments at FAC, at the talk page or working on the article itself. I think it is better to amend all these things carefully (even if I believe the article has improved substantially, and beyond the level I was even thinking of prior to FAC) and especially without haste. To do so, I'd like to withdraw the nomination. I'll work on the issues raised above and may renominate it for FAC at some point. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 08:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some feedback
I'm putting my response here for the ease of edit (for me and others). By categorical point of view, I was thinking of, for example, the fact that the category of finite-dimensional vector spaces is equivalent to the category of matrices (see Equivalence_(category_theory)). This is very important because it explains, for example, why in linear algebra one essentially doesn't have to study vector spaces as much as matrices. (I also think the cat of finite-dimensional vector spaces is equivalent to that of finite sets.) Also, one may start with a quotient map (i.e., a surjective linear map) instead of quotient spaces and use the universality to show this definition is essentially equivalent to the more usual one. The view points such as the above are abstract but are indispensable if one wants to study vector spaces seriously. On the other hand, I don't think, as the article currently does, mentioning the category of vector spaces is additive is important, for it is very trivial. It is important to mention the applications of isomorphisms theorem rather than how to prove them.
Next, about annihilators. (This is an important concept and the article has to discuss it) I think I was getting at is that the possibility of defining a bilinear form (or sesquilinear one) on a vector space. When studying vector spaces or related stuff in application, bilinear forms defined on them are often useful and indispensable. An inner product is one example, of course, but it doesn't scale well to infinite-dimensional vector spaces (which may not have topology, like infinite-dimensional Lie algebras). So, one also uses natural pairs for V x V^*. (Though this isn't quite a bilinear form.) Anyway, my point is that we need a discussion on bilinear forms (probably a whole section on it). A basis can be chosen according to such a form, and actually that's often what one does; e.g., orthonormal basis. (I just noticed the article doesn't even mention dual basis, which is an important concept.)
Finally, on the balance. Yes, the article is fairly lengthy already, but I think we can make a significant cut by eliminating stuff on trivial facts or some linear algebra materials such as determinants. Doing that would likely diminish accessibility (and thus usefulness) of the article for a first-time learner of vector spaces. But that's something we can afford since the focus of the article should be on important topics not trivial ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuyaMurata ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- The category of finite dimensional vector spaces is not equivalent to the category of finite sets: the former has many more morphisms, and the latter is not even an additive category. Geometry guy 14:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:35, 3 January 2009 [97].
Quark
- Nominator(s): User:Anonymous Dissident
- previous FAC (00:50, 7 October 2008)
I'm here to try again. Myself and others have continued to do work towards the improving of this article; concerns cited last time mainly revolved around perceived problems with clarity and tone. Now that the article is slightly longer and more detailed, with a longer lead and clearer explanation, I'd hope that these problems would be fixed. While some of the omissions in content noted at the last FAC have been remedied, we have still taken care to give a comprehensive but not overly scientific coverage; this is, after all, an encyclopedia, and we wouldn't want a book length analysis of a topic that could become easily convoluted with too much advanced scientific and/or theoretical exploration. I'm perfectly happy to act upon any concerns mentioned. I just hope that this article will be deemed simple enough but detailed enough now; last time, we had one camp saying that the article wasn't written simply enough, while another was calling for greater technical expansion. It's my belief we have a better mix of both now. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Resolved issues
- Comment Lead is much better now. So is the overall prose. I would support the FAC nomination, but for one omission that I failed to spot last time. As noted on the talk page. The article does not mention the CKM matrix for the quark masses/ quark mixing. It is one of the most striking differences between quarks and leptons in the standard model. (in the SM the leptons have no generation mixing) Hopefully this can be corrected during this FAC round, because I feel overall the article is very strong. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 11:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
- I must confess I don't know bout that particular concept. I'll read some material on it today and tomorrow, and insert some information on it into the article then. I wouldn't want to add some ill-informed stuff right now. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well now, let's have a look. The lead needs some work to make it crisper, and the logic could be tightened. Avoid elegant variation (called, known as, named). Be consistent in style ( serial comma or no serial comma?). Try this alternative (references omitted):
In physics, a[See discussion below] A quark (pronounced /kwɔrk/ or /kwɑrk/) is a type of subatomic particle. Because of color confinement, most quarks only occur bound together in hadrons: composite particles such as protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.Quarks are of six different types, or flavors: up (symbol:
u
), down (
d
), charm (
c
), strange (
s
), top (
t
), and bottom (
b
). The up and down quarks are the lightest and most stable; as the constituents of protons and neutrons, they are primary and most abundant building blocks of matter. The unstable charm, strange, top, and bottom quarks decay rapidly, after formation in particle accelerators, cosmic rays, or similar high energy environments. For every quark flavor there is a corresponding antiquark: an antiparticle differing only in that some of its properties have the opposite sign. The properties of most quarks must be deduced from experiments on the hadrons they compose; but the top quark, decaying too rapidly to hadronize, is observed by identifying the particles it decays into. Some Big Bang theories postulate a quark-gluon plasma with single unbound quarks (including "free" top quarks), in the extremely hot early universe.The quark model was proposed independently by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964. Confirmation came in 1968, when electron–proton scattering experiments revealed three "sphere-like" regions in the substructure of the proton. In 1995 the last of the six, the top flavor, was observed at Fermilab.
- I might say more when I've read through the rest. Interesting!– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 11:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Such a concise style can become hard to read when it is full of technical terms. Phrase such as known as signal a reader that it is not expected that he has known of the term. I definately prefer the more gentle style of the current lead. Note that elegant variation refers to using different words for the same thing, not to using different phrases with a similar meaning in different contexts. (Imagine a text that describes complex reasoning that only used the word thus and never any of its synonyms consequently, so or therefore because they would constitute (in) elegant variation.) ( TimothyRias ( talk) 14:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
- Timothy, I agree that conciseness can be taken too far. I offer a much tighter version as a basis; anything that is then added might require specific justification. As for elegant variation, I disagree. It can apply to any wording, not just nouns (as your reference to "things" suggests). Perhaps this in unclear in our article; but it is plainly stated in its primary source, which begins like this: "We include under this head all substitutions of one word for another for the sake of variety,...". Fowler addresses nouns mainly, but gives a few examples like this: "I must ask the reader to use the same twofold procedure that I before requested him to employ in considering...—H. Sidgwick." Anyway, the contexts here are not different, as you seem to imply; and the varied words are quite near each other. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Timothy; we should give a definition of quark as soon as possible[1], but it cannot be made specific enough without using technical terms, and the In technical terms tells the reader "don't worry if you don't understand this now".
- [1] Not everyone would agree to call that a "definition", as it would also apply to gluinos, but given that the hypothesis of the existences of gluinos (and supersymmetric partners in general) is (IMO) largely speculative with very little or no empirical evidence, and that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, better not worry about that. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Army, it ought to be blindingly obvious that the terms are technical. Would anyone think they are the common terms of everyday life? Because they are likely to be unfamiliar, they are clearly linked. We should not patronise readers; we help them best by writing lucidly what they need to know.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - is "In physics" absolutely needed? I think the next clause, "A quark is a type of subatomic particle." encompasses that sentence perfectly (cf [98]) Sceptre ( talk) 14:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, be wouldn't that conflict with the also true statement that "A quark is the sound a duck makes"? Now, of course, I don't think anybidy would be confused by this. But it is a wikipedia best practice to establish the right context in the opening sentence. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 14:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
- There are other meanings, more serious that the cry of a gull (see Quark (disambiguation)); besides that, starting article with "In topic, subject is" is de-facto standard in Wikipedia, and it doesn't harm. It's obvious that we're not talking about a cheese here, but see WP:State the obvious. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not convinced of the way information about hadrons and strong interaction is scattered in several sections in different places in the article, but as soon as I figure out a better way to do that I'll fix the problem. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
:This is turning out to be far less trivial than I believed... -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[Done, see below -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)]
- Comment: Like Tim above, I also would mention the CKM matrix. And that color coded table still is an eyesore. I'll make a thourough review in the next few days, but it looks pretty solid. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Question - What exactly is Murray Gell-Mann holding in his hand? A lump of coal? A Ding Dong? It's hard to tell. Kaldari ( talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Further comments:
- Lead : Quarks are the only particles to experience all four interactions. This is mentioned in the "classification" section, but IMO this should also be in the lead.
- Is it accurate to describe Zweig as a co-proposer rather than an independent proposer or something to that effect? Co-proposer seem to imply that Zweig and Gell-Man collaborated on this.
- "However, this notion has been recently challenged in quantum chromodynamics by theories that include vacuum polarization and the coupling of quark hadrons to strange quarks in the vacuum.[41]" The reference given is from 1993. That's 15 years ago...
- "Current quark mass". I feel the term should be a bit clarified. "Current" could be interpreted to mean "the quarks of 2008's mass" instead of "flow".
- And I just have to reiterated that I really hate those nigh pointless colors in that table...
- In the color confinement section, more could be said about how the top quark's "non-hadronization leads to direct measurements of the mass. It says it's an exception, but stops there. I feel this leaves the reader wanting for more.
- Assymptotic freedom --> Mentionning that this got Wilczek et al. a nobel prize here would be fitting here I think.
- I think the note about the number of generations should be merged in the text.
- Should the image about the decay include "rarer" arrows from t to d and b to u?
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've done most of what you've requested. I removed the 15 year old material. It didn't seem very relevant and was representative of just one of the many fringe views on the topic. i think the colours are fine. I also didn't mention Wilczek; I don't necessarily object to a mention, but I couldn't see how that would fit well into the section, as we were right into the throes of a deep explanation when the freedom was mentioned, and noting that a Nobel Prize was won would kind of distract from that. I also don't really know what more information you want about top quark non-hadronization; there isn't much more to say, from what I know. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- And here are mine:
- I have attempted, and might have succeeded, in re-organizing the material about strong interaction. But since Murphy's law predicts a very high probability that I screwed something up, I saved my new version to User:Army1987/Quark. Might someone take a look at it? If there is nothing seriously wrong with it, it can be incorporated into the article.
- Hmm, I'm not sure. Could you outline exactly what you've done? I don't have the time to read through it all now, and I certainly don't have the time to actually compare the two side by side. From a quick glance, you've elected to place the material about hadronization first, and the "other" properties last. I don't think that's entirely sensical, myself, and, at least in that regard, I prefer the way the current article is structured. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- The point is keeping all the information about the same topic together. All those "below" links about gluons and sea quarks are not very reader-friendly. As it currently stands, the article introduces some of the concepts of QCD, then it discusses completely unrelated things such as spin, electric charge, etc., and then goes back to QCD to end explaining the concept which were introduced. Doesn't sound like a good structure to me. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've been thinking of a way of mentioning the CKM matrix, without stating either falsehoods or things that will be totally incomprehensible to the average encyclopedia reader. I failed. Any ideas, anyone?
- (This is one of the very few times I'm nationalistic.) But surely Nicola Cabibbo should be mentioned somewhere in the History section, shouldn't he?
- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comments: mostly copy-and-paste from my opposition at this article's last FAC, slightly updated.
Curious omission: not even a hint of the group theory basis of the quark model? Doesn't need to be much, but if it isn't mentioned at all, this article is not comprehensive.
- Comments: mostly copy-and-paste from my opposition at this article's last FAC, slightly updated.
Curious omission: Yang-Mills theories and, more generally, non-Abelian gauge theories not mentioned at all. Doesn't need to be much, but if it isn't mentioned at all, this article is not comprehensive.
- Major omission: quark gluon plasma is in the lead, but not in the main article (big no-no in itself). This is a central aspect of modern research on quarks.
Description of the parton model: could use some words on what it means that "the proton had substructure".
- Given. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did some tweaking. A sphere would be something else; for definiteness, I took the formulation used in the article that is cited as a reference. Markus Poessel ( talk) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
History section: CP violation should have a one-sentence-explanation or text will not be accessible for your average interested reader
- Mentioned. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"The system of attraction and repulsion between quarks charged with any of the three colors (...) is as follows: a quark charged with one color value will be attracted to an antiquark carrying with the corresponding anticolor, while three quarks all charged with differing colors will similarly be forced together. In any other case, a force of repulsion will come into effect." - that makes it sound more simple than it is. If, say, you have three quarks, each with a different color, and take the symmetric combination, you'll end up with a repulsive force. Also, for a symmetric state with two quarks with two different colors, you get an attractive force.
"Composed of one d and two u quarks, the proton has an overall mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the three quarks contribute around 10 MeV/c2, the remainder is from the energy of the gluons." - 10 MeV/c^2 sounds very low. I remember coming across higher numbers (quark rest mass plus kinetic energy contributions - which one is meant here? quark rest mass only?). Also, at least one of the sources cited (Veltman p. 46) doesn't say anything about this - why is it cited here? Possibly a different page?
- From "Review of Particle Physics:Quarks of 2008 this mass is 12 Mev (3*2+5). Ruslik ( talk) 10:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- But those are the quarks' rest mass contributions only, then. In that case, the sentence, as it stands, is wrong: The quarks contribute not only their rest mass, but also the mass associated with their kinetic energy. If I remember correctly, the latter contribution is significantly larger than the former. Markus Poessel ( talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Gluons are constantly exchanged between quarks through an emission and reception process. These gluon exchange events between quarks are extremely frequent, occurring approximately 1024 times every second." - I'm very skeptical about the number given. After all - and that should be stated here! - the exchange picture is perturbation theory; whatever happens inside a hadron is highly non-perturbative.
- Markus Poessel ( talk) 09:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with most of your points, but I'm afraid it'd be very difficult to mention group theory and Yang-Mills theories in a way that would be comprehensible to the average reader. IMO such details belong to more technical articles such as Quantum chromodynamics, quark model, etc., which are linked by this article, and the reader can follow the links for more information. I'll try to address the other points. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to mention it in a way that the average reader understands completely – but, in the appropriate place, a single sentence that says "In mathematical language, ..., and quarks are in the ... representation of that group." would be something that a) makes the article more comprehensive, b) contains wikilinks to important terms that are intimately connected with the way quarks are described in physics, and should definitely be wikilinked from this lemma, and c) can be made brief enough to show the average reader that there is more, but not something that he or she need understand in detail at this point. Markus Poessel ( talk) 13:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've made a paragraphical mention of qgp. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unfortunately, I think the paragraph is a bit off. QGP is certainly not a theory; if you want to stress the speculative nature, "conjectured new state of matter" or similar would probably be appropriate. Sourcing with a textbook from 2000 is unfortunate; there were major new results from RHIC in 2005. In this lemma, there's probably not enough room to mention specific experiments (if you mention CERN, you must mention RHIC, and outside the time-frame mentioned the LHC), but there should be a mention of cosmological implications – after all, that's one reason this has generated so much interest. Would you mind if I gave it a try? Markus Poessel ( talk) 09:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all; please do. If you could possibly lend your expertise in the other areas that you mentioned were in omission, I'd also be hugely appreciative. I'm no expert, and am frankly overwhelmed by some of your requests. I'd offer that since you were the person to bring some of the matters up, you might know some information on each of the respective omitted topics? If you can't, I completely understand; it'd just make the improvement of the article easier and the overall product better. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- [Continuing from my earlier comments:] An interesting and important article with some sophisticated technical content, apparently aimed at explaining quarks to the naive reader. I would like to see it succeed; but I cannot give it my vote in its present state. Generally, I regard the writing as not up to standard. There is uncertainty of tone and of technical level. Here are some specific points, some of which are connected to observations I make above:
- In the lead, the reader is pampered with such comforts as "in technical terms", "because of a phenomenon known as", "they are found in two of the primary building blocks of matter – protons and neutrons". But there is little point mixing such pabulum with hard-core assertions like this: "This color confinement is propagated by the quarks' engagement in the strong interaction due to their color charge." In fact, it is better to omit the soft stuff and rely on the links to do the work. Evenness of tone; and a consistent level of difficulty.
- I have eliminated the color confinement mention; it wasn't necessary there at any rate. I don't understand what you mean when you say that the reader is "pampered" by some kind of perceived "softness" in sentence construction. Different concepts ad elements of the text require a varying level and complexity of articulation, and there is a difference between this and unevenness of tone. Anyhow, I have fixed and attended to both of the instances you have pointed out; if you could point out further instances of the issue, please do so. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the lead, the reader is pampered with such comforts as "in technical terms", "because of a phenomenon known as", "they are found in two of the primary building blocks of matter – protons and neutrons". But there is little point mixing such pabulum with hard-core assertions like this: "This color confinement is propagated by the quarks' engagement in the strong interaction due to their color charge." In fact, it is better to omit the soft stuff and rely on the links to do the work. Evenness of tone; and a consistent level of difficulty.
Also manifest in the lead, and throughout the article, is uncertainty with the serial comma. And a spaced en dash is used, though all other sentence-punctuating dashes are unspaced em dashes (see WP:DASH). WP:MOS stresses early on the need for consistency of style. Also on punctuation, note 8 needs a space between . and ".Generally the notes seem pretty clean, though – apart from the redlinked names of publishers. Is it policy to include those? I'd prefer to see them unlinked.- "Uncertainty" rectified. If you could point to where the offending space is located, I'd be happy to remove it. Note 8 fixed. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No, not offending space: offending spaced en dashes. Actually, I prefer them, myself. (Read WP:DASH.) But we have to be consistent, so the sentence-punctuating dashes in this article should all be unspaced em dashes. Substitute them, in "...three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which..."Fixed.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 23:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Alas, no. AD, I invited you to read WP:DASH. Forgive me, but it appears that you have not done so. You have now put in unspaced en dashes, where I and WP:DASH and all publishers allow only spaced en dashes (which you had at the outset) in this role, or em dashes (which are in fact required for consistency in this article: unspaced, in fact). WP:DASH (part of WP:MOS) and I repeat our recommendation: now replace your text quarks–up, down and strange–to which with quarks—up, down and strange–to which. Only trying to help. :)Fixed. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Eh. Fixed now. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Classification section: "In this context, flavor is an arbitrarily chosen term referring to different kinds of particles, and has nothing to do with the everyday experience of flavor." Really? And this soon before the dizzying abstruseness of "meaning that their spin quantum number (a property related to their intrinsic angular momentum) is half-integer". Surely such explanations are aimed at different readerships! And more of the same in the rest. Other things: Is the "u with bar" well executed? Surely there is a more suitable character than this, in which the bar looks like a mere artefact on the screen. In "antiquarks have the same mass, lifetime and spin of their respective quarks" there should be a serial comma for consistency (or none elsewhere), and as should replace of. Such matters contribute to an overall looseness in the prose.
- I disagree about the readership notion; spin is explained quite simply, with links to relevant articles. I don't see a problem with this, really, and it was you after all who suggested that we let the links do the work in your first point. The u bar notation is based in a template that houses the scientific notations for all particles, and its use is standard and required in all articles on particle physics. Fixed the of --> as and the missing serial comma. We now have no serials in the article. I think. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Two serial commas that I can see: "...strange (s), top (t), and bottom (b)", and "...three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which...". I don't know why you have just now settled on a no-serial-commas policy. I'm a strong advocate of them, myself. But if you have that policy, apply it to the two cases I have just shown.Fixed.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Removed. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- History section: Are readers supposed to think that several and numerous carry different weight, in "several leptons and numerous hadrons"? If so, how might they tease this out? Again, elegant variation theatens to distract readers. Consider this: "The Gell-Mann–Zweig model predicted three quarks, which they named up, down and strange. At the time, the pair of physicists ascribed various properties and values to the three new proposed particles, such as electric charge and spin." (What, for the naive reader, is the difference between a property and a value, here?) Why not simply this instead: "Gell-Mann and Zweig postulated just three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which they at first ascribed such properties as spin and electric charge." Why do I propose this? Study it! Two points: Dropping "model" (which turns up soon enough) lets the remainder of the sentence use "they". Similarly, we don't need it repeated that there are "three new proposed particles". Three? Yes, we got that. New? Well, newly discovered – we got that too. Proposed? Of course. Particles? Sure, what else could they be? Later whilst turns up: the ugly "formalising" variant of natural English while, used throughout the rest of the article. Not pleasant. Now this: "Following a decade without empirical evidence supporting the flavor's existence, it was created and observed..." Created? What, the flavor? How so?
- Fixed; I've replaced the old sentence with the one you proposed. I also fixed the problem with leptons and hadrons in the least awkward manner I could think of. I don't understand what you're asking in your final sentence. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In that sentence I was wondering what the text means: "...it was created and observed". I understood observed: a quantum, and therefore the flavor of a quantum, can be observed; a quantum can be "created" in a sense (but it's better to say produced). But quantum does not occur in that sentence! A flavor per se (as a category of quantaquarks that have been theorised about, but not yet observed) is not created – except perhaps for revisionist mystics like Paul Davies, who would have God creating the whole box and dice. I suggest you have this instead: "Following a decade without empirical evidence supporting their existence, charm quantaquarks were finally produced and observed...". See? I genuinely couldn't see what you meant, till I thought again at length.Fixed.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Replaced with a sentence nearly identical in structure to yours ('quanta' was replaced by 'quarks'). — Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- As for "several leptons and numerous hadrons", there are six leptons, and dozens (maybe hundreds) of baryons. And not all of them were known in 1964. So "several leptons and numerous hadrons" was much better than "a multitude of leptons and hadrons". I don't want to go around researching when exactly the muon was reclassified from a meson to a lepton, or when the tau lepton, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino were discovered in order to replace that with the exact number, and anyway that number would be highly irrelevant in that context. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Etymology: More he, less Gell-Mann, I think. "George Zweig, an independent proposer of the theory,...". Yes, we know that by now. Too much repetition and wordiness.
- Both fixed. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Etymology: More he, less Gell-Mann, I think. "George Zweig, an independent proposer of the theory,...". Yes, we know that by now. Too much repetition and wordiness.
- Great; I thank you. Cheers, — Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I am ready to offer more comments once these points have been addressed; and I look forward to being able to support promotion of the article, eventually.No, no more to say.- – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 10:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've read the lead and the first section after that. I agree with Anonymous Dissident that the article strikes an appropriate balance between scientific rigor and accessibility to readers. I may support if I finish reading it later. Crystal whacker ( talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I finished reading the article and support its promotion to featured status.
- One point to consider: In the last section it is written: "The area of physics that studies strong interactions is called the quantum chromodynamics or QCD.[51]" However, QCD is mentioned earlier in the article. Is there a way to introduce QCD earlier or resolve this redundancy, or should it be introduced in two separate parts of the article as it is now? Crystal whacker ( talk) 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I reread every argument made and these needs to be address before I give my support:
A mention of the CKM matrix and quark mixing needs to be there. Preferably a section devoted to it.Took care of it.Why in the world is that table full of colors?
- The colors do mean something symbolically. Every element of the table with one colour is related to every other element of the same colour. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Table has been re-tablified. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The current in 'current quark mass needs to be clarified in some way (wikilink?).
- I think the italics around the phrase make it clear that it's a technical term and there wouldn't be much room for confusion with "quark mass as of now." If you can think of a link, I'd be happy to add it, but I honestly don't think we;'ll have any confusion. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, good enough. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The term hadronize (and variations) could be de-jargonified into "form hadrons" or something similar.
- Will do. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- At first usage, I have explained what the term means and said that the process will be "hereon referred to as hadronization." I think that should be enough. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Should the image about the decay include "rarer" arrows from t to d and b to u?(The labs will take care of this eventually)
- Probably, I just have no way of doing it as I don't have an application to edit images. Hmm. I'll see if I can contact the uploader. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've contacted the graphics labs. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Amry1987 above. There's a place for Cabibbo et al. in the history section (might be a good place to add Wilzcek et al. too).
- Section is now present. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Flavour quantum numbers deserves a section of its own, similar to spin and electric charge. Should the Gell-Man-Nishijima formula be mentionned somewhere? List of baryons has something on it that could prove usefull.
- Done by Markus (I think; may have been someone else). — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel the hadron section could use a short meson section and a short baryon section, with main article links.
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I think we've given good coverage to them and mentioning more of the basics (that's all we'd need because this is an article on quarks) throughout the article, so a dedicated section might not be needed. We already discuss how they're formed in color charge and confinement/gluons. It'd just be redundant. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, good enough. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Some more issues I know I said I was going to support, but I've recently notice potential issues about factual accuracy and completeness of coverage.
- Charm quark says they (charm quarks) were theorized by Glashow, Illious, and Maini in 1970. This article ( quark) says they were theorized by Glashow and Bjorken in 1964. One of the two articles has to be wrong. Which is it?
- Multiple sources of mine indicate that this article is correct. I'll fix charm quark now. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 06:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- The down quark and up quark pages said they were discovered in 1967, not 1968 as quark says (I changed the down quark based on the quark article, so it now says 1968). However the articles used as refs to back the claim of 1968 are from 1969. So which way is it?
- This article is definitely right, my sources are reliable. I'll now fix up and down quark articles. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yuval Ne'eman proposed a SU(3) scheme to classify hadrons in 1961/62, similar to/the same as Gell-Man's SU(2) in 1962. Both event take place before 1964, which is the "birth" of the quark model/eightfold way/aces. What is Ne'eman's role in the quark thing? How is the 1961/62 version of things from Ne'eman and Gell-Man different from the Eightfold way?
- From my understanding, Ne'eman has little to with quarks. He independtly proposed the Eightfold way from Gell-Mann in the same year. The Eightfold way eventually led to the postulation of quarks. I don't really understand what your question is; you seem to be implying that there is something historically wrong with the eightfold way being proposed before quarks, but the eightfold way concerns octets of mesons and baryons, so I don't see where the problem is. In regard to your last question: from what I know, the two proposed a notion that was almost identical. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think I've confused the color SU(3) with the approximate flavour SU(3). Seems consistent with the content of the "color" section. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done, except for triplet and degree of freedom for which I'm not very sure about the best link target. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for now, in light of the comments I made above.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: No other reviewers seem prepared to !vote on this. Writing as an "outsider" (I am a microbiologist and perhaps therefore an average reader); I find this article fascinating, engaging and very well-written. It has taught me very much. It seems to me that the discussions above pertain to criterion 4, mainly wrt summary style, and this is so difficult to get right. This is a damn good article. Period. I would be pleased to see this on the Main Page. There is room for improvement in all articles, including those that are featured. No doubt, such improvements will be made to this one—but I see no reasons, based on the Featured Article Criteria, to withhold the bronze star. Graham Colm Talk 22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support I supported this article two months ago, and I should admit that it has become much better since then. I copy-edited it slightly. There is, of course, a room for improvement, but think the article is very close to FA level. Ruslik ( talk) 10:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.Neutral. [Changed because some specific concerns have been addressed. Only neutral, I'm afraid, because I do not think the article quite meets the high standard of writing demanded in a featured article, and therefore does not succeed in delivering its content as efficiently as it might. I will not, however, oppose its promotion on that ground. I'll have no more to say here.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)]
Support All my concerns have been addressed, so "support".
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics} 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose until the referencing issues are addressed, and until the Gell-Man and Ne'eman thing in 1961 is clarified. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the third time in this review that I've come across a reference that doesn't contain the information it's meant to provide, which I think is very, very worrying. I'm going to make spot-checks on some of the other references, but for now I'm going back to Oppose - this indicates serious problems with the way references have been added to this lemma. Markus Poessel ( talk) 14:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Image review: I'm commenting on the licensing of the images only. I am unable to comment on the accuracy of the self-made images.
- I have a question about File:Charmed-dia-w.png. I am confused because it is marked as PD US Gov, and I read the permissions exchange linked in the Source. It acknowledges the image is PD, but asks for no proprietary use for the image. I am unclear why someone would ask such a thing of a public domain image. I have asked for further clarification on that image in particular.
- All other images appear to be fine. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- "These partons were later identified as up and down quarks when the other flavors were beginning to surface.[23]" where the reference is L.M. Lederman, D. Teresi (2006). The God Particle. Mariner Books. p. 208.
ISBN
0618711686. The book is online at Google Books, and there is nothing on p. 208 to support this particular sentence, as far as I can see.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 12:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is weird. I'm going to remove this reference; I'm not sure who added it - it may well have been me - but, you're right, it isn't pertinent. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Various theories have been offered to explain this very large mass. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question.[28]" where 28 is
this press release. As far as I can see, the press release says nothing about the LHC, and about explaining the interaction of Higgs and top quark. It's all about the upper limit on the Higgs mass from measurements of the top quark mass.
- You haven't read it, then. Please see "Physics: The mass of the top quark (pp638-642; N&V)", the second section. It does mention the LHC, and how the Higgs boson may be related to the top quark mass. —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've most certainly read that section. Where does it say anything about answering the question of why the top quark mass is so large? As I wrote above: It's all about the upper limit on the higgs mass from measurements of the top quark mass, as far as I can see.
Here is a nice little summary on how top quark mass and higgs mass are related.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- "For example, the mass of the top quark is related to the mass of the long-hypothesized but still undetected Higgs boson. Properties of the (equally hypothetical) field associated with this particle would help explain why matter is, not to put too fine a point on it, 'massive.' In principle, the top quark is point-like and should have no mass; yet, through its interactions with the Higgs field, the physical mass of the top quark appears to be about that of a gold nucleus." - that is a valid and appropriate reference to "Various theories have been offered to explain this very large mass. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question.[28]" —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 00:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. What you quote simply describes the Higgs mechanism, which is how all quarks get their mass. It does not tell us anything about why the top quark mass is so much heavier than expected – it does not "answer the question" of why the mass has the value it does have, as the statement claims. Also, what is the "study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field" the statement is talking about? Is it anything other than measuring the top quark's mass more precisely than before? If yes, then the article basically says that measuring the top quark's mass more precisely might help answer the question of why the top quark's mass is so large. How is that supposed to work?
Markus Poessel (
talk) 14:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Who said the ref has to provide an answer? All that needs to be referenced is that elementary particles are affected by the Higgs mechanism, and, as you yourself stated, it does. This was the statement, and the source backs up and parallels the statement. That's what a reference is. —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 15:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- The reference is meant to provide support for the assertion that "Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question." - the question being, as stated earlier, why the top quark is so heavy. The reference given does not say anything about physicists hoping to answer, by detecting the Higgs boson and studying the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field, the question of why the top quark is so heavy. That's not what a reference is supposed to be.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- The reference says ".In principle, the top quark is point-like and should have no mass; yet, through its interactions with the Higgs field, the physical mass of the top quark appears to be about that of a gold nucleus." then followed by "Further improvements in precision are to be expected from the Tevatron at Fermilab, and from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (the European nuclear research laboratory at Geneva) when it becomes operational after 2007." I don't know what more you could ask for as a ref for the statement that the interaction of the top quark with the higgs fields is the proposed reason why the top quark is so heavy, and that physicist are looking forward to the LHC experiments to probe the interaction of the top and the higgs so they can understand it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The reference is meant to provide support for the assertion that "Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question." - the question being, as stated earlier, why the top quark is so heavy. The reference given does not say anything about physicists hoping to answer, by detecting the Higgs boson and studying the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field, the question of why the top quark is so heavy. That's not what a reference is supposed to be.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Who said the ref has to provide an answer? All that needs to be referenced is that elementary particles are affected by the Higgs mechanism, and, as you yourself stated, it does. This was the statement, and the source backs up and parallels the statement. That's what a reference is. —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 15:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. What you quote simply describes the Higgs mechanism, which is how all quarks get their mass. It does not tell us anything about why the top quark mass is so much heavier than expected – it does not "answer the question" of why the mass has the value it does have, as the statement claims. Also, what is the "study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field" the statement is talking about? Is it anything other than measuring the top quark's mass more precisely than before? If yes, then the article basically says that measuring the top quark's mass more precisely might help answer the question of why the top quark's mass is so large. How is that supposed to work?
Markus Poessel (
talk) 14:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- "For example, the mass of the top quark is related to the mass of the long-hypothesized but still undetected Higgs boson. Properties of the (equally hypothetical) field associated with this particle would help explain why matter is, not to put too fine a point on it, 'massive.' In principle, the top quark is point-like and should have no mass; yet, through its interactions with the Higgs field, the physical mass of the top quark appears to be about that of a gold nucleus." - that is a valid and appropriate reference to "Various theories have been offered to explain this very large mass. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question.[28]" —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 00:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've most certainly read that section. Where does it say anything about answering the question of why the top quark mass is so large? As I wrote above: It's all about the upper limit on the higgs mass from measurements of the top quark mass, as far as I can see.
Here is a nice little summary on how top quark mass and higgs mass are related.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- You haven't read it, then. Please see "Physics: The mass of the top quark (pp638-642; N&V)", the second section. It does mention the LHC, and how the Higgs boson may be related to the top quark mass. —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
More on references.
- The current ref. 1 is "Fundamental Particles". Oxford Physics.
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/pUS/dIS/fundam.htm. Retrieved on 2008-06-29. "Oxford Physics" is a bit grand - if you look at the author information, it was written by an undergraduate and a sixth-form student. Yes, it was written for the public webpages of the Oxford Physics Department, and they probably looked some or all of it over, but it's still an inappropriate source. If this statement needs a reference at all, it should be one of the text-books used elsewhere in the article.
- Removed. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 07:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref. 4 is to HyperPhysics - why, when there is the online Review of Particle Properties, which has the same information, much more authoritative?
- It's a simple ref right at the beginning that goes straight to the point. Quarks are fundamental fermions that compose baryons (groups of 3), such as protons and neutrons, and mesons (groups of q-antiq), and talks about confinment. And it covers their names. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref. 8 apparently gives the same information as ref 4. (six flavors). Better to have both point to the same reference, and the natural choice is the Review of Particle Properties.
- Used the hyperphysics refs. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref. 3 is meant to support the statements 1) top and bottom sometimes known as truth and beauty, and 2) Color confinement; all we know from quarks is from studying hadrons. The page reference is to page 169, which does mention in passing truth/topness and beauty/bottomness, but nothing about color confinement or the necessary of inferring quark properties from hadrons.
- Fixed. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 5. is an article from an institutional newsletter/journal ("Beamline"). The article itself is about the top quark discovery. Seeing how much literature is out there on the history of physics, this is not a very suitable reference for the quark model being proposed by Gell-Mann and Zweig in 1964.
- It's suitable enough to establish that Gell-Man and Zweig proposed it. Nevertheless I've placed the original articles from Gell-Man and Zweig next to it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- A page or section number would be helpful for the current ref 10, J. Barrow (1997) [1994]. "The Singularity and Other Problems". The Origin of the Universe (Reprint ed.). Basic Books.
ISBN
978-0465053148 - it's not very helpful if readers have to search the whole book to find the information they're after.
- —This is part of a comment by Markus Poessel (of 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
- "The Singularity and Other Problems" is a (relatively short) chapter, the book being The Origin of the Universe. I only have the Italian translation of the book. The TOC of the book is available online for preview on (IIRC) Amazon and it is where I took the English title of the chapter (which, incidentally, had been translated verbatim in Italian), but that chapter wasn't on preview, so I couldn't add page numbers. (If someone has either the original language edition of that book or another source which says the same thing, please add page numbers and/or the other source.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref. 12, P. Rowlands (2008). Zero to Infinity. World Scientific. p. 406. ISBN 9812709142: Reference for statement that antiparticles have the same mass, life-time, spin. That particular page is part of the limited preview on Google Books, and has no statements about antiparticles whatsoever, as far as I can see.
- Switched it to Introductionary Nuclear Physics by Samuel Wong. There's a paragraph directly on that. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Current ref. 17: A. Pickering (1984). Constructing Quarks. University of Chicago Press. p. 84. ISBN 0226667995. Reference is to p. 84, but should probably better be to section 4.4, where the question is discussed of the reality is discussed in more detail
- Current ref. 18: B.J. Bjorken, S.L. Glashow (1964). "Elementary Particles and SU(4)". Physics Letters 11 (3): 255. doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)90433-0 is the reference for a fourth flavour of quark being proposed. I might have overlooked it, but I don't find the word "quark" in the article. My impression is that Bjorken and Glashow at that time did not think the constituent quarks were all that relevant. It's all about the symmetry groups, not about partons.
- The publication predicted what became known as the charm quark, even thought it might not have been proposed as a quark. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 23, here, is just a text-only timeline, no indication of any publication, apparently part of lecture notes by an astronomer. Surely, there must be a reliable alternative source. Also, I see no indication that the text on that page supports the statement for which it is listed as a reference: "These partons were later identified as up and down quarks when the other flavors were beginning to surface. Their discovery also validated the existence of the strange quark, because it was necessary to the model Gell-Mann and Zweig had proposed." It doesn't use the word parton, it just lists the Stanford experiment without pointing to later identification of the particles observed, and it certainly doesn't say anything about the strange quark being indirectly validated.
- The 1968 section matches with "There partons were later identified as as up and down quarks" and the "without mentioning the name quark" means they were using the name "parton". If you really want to be picky about it, I suppose it is a bit of a strech, but the five refs of this paragraphs do cover all the paragraph, even if they aren't rigoursly aligned statement by statement. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref. 26, M. Kobayashi, T. Maskawa (1973). "CP-Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction". Progress of Theoretical Physics 49 (2): 652–657. doi:10.1143/PTP.49.652. http://ptp.ipap.jp/link?PTP/49/652/pdf, doesn't appear to say anything about naming the two additional quarks top and bottom.
- Moved ref to relevant part, and placed a citation needed tag for the names.
- "The building blocks of the atomic nucleus—the proton and the neutron—are baryons" - I agree it's a small step from "proton and neutron are made of three quarks", which is what the reference says, to "... are baryons", but still: if there's a reference for such a straightforward sentence at all, why not one that actually talks about baryons (this reference doesn't mention the word)?
- I've added the Hyperphysics ref so the word baryon is explicit. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current reference 33, E.V. Shuryak (2004). The QCD Vacuum, Hadrons and Superdense Matter. World Scientific. pp. 59. ISBN 9812385746, does mention pentaquarks, but not tetraquarks, as far as I can see.
- I've added the 2008 PDG review on tetraquarks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Current reference 34 (Povh et al.) should have a page or a section number. Otherwise it's not very helpful.
- Ref. 37 (Demtröder): The limited review available on Google books has p. 39-40 all about the mass of the electron, not about atomic nuclei, protons and neutrons.
- Current ref 38: F. Close (2006). The New Cosmic Onion. CRC Press. p. 82. ISBN 1584887982. Cited in support of the spin of quarks, and the fact they are fermions. Page cited is about quark spins combining to form hadron spins. Quark spin itself is one page earlier; I don't see anything about fermions.
- "Half-integer spin" and "fermions" are synonyms. I've changed the page to 81 though. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Current ref. 40, "Quarks". Antonine Education. http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Physics_AS/Module_1/Topic_5/quarks.htm. Retrieved on 2008-07-10 - how is this a reliable source? What is worse, it's given as a reference to how quark spins combine to give hadron spins. I found no such information on the page. In fact, I didn't find a single mention of "spin".
- Wow that is a horrible ref. I've removed it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 52, M. Veltman (2003). Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics. World Scientific. p. 46. ISBN 981238149X. - again going by the preview available on Google Books: On the page cited, nothing I can see about the different contribution to hadron mass, which accounts for two of three uses of this reference. The third use is close, although on Google, the color changes are on p. 47.
- I've fixed the Velman refs, the pages now fit the statements. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Current ref. 62 , Papenfuss/Luest/Schleich, is a collection of contributions by many authors. Quoting it in support of a very specific statement without giving a page or section number is rather pointless.
- "Therefore, although the color of each quark is always changing, a bound hadron will constantly retain a set of colors that will preserve the force of attraction, therefore forever disallowing quarks to exist in isolation" - current ref. 67, S. Webb (2004). Out of this World. Springer. p. 91. ISBN 0387029303. As far as I can see, nothing about confinement or about the statement about bound hadrons retaining a set of colors on that particular page.
- Ref. 69, J.T.V. Tran (1996). '96 Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories. Atlantica Séguier Frontières. p. 60. ISBN 2863322052. is not cited properly. This is a contribution by Michael Doser, titled "Status of Glueballs", in the proceedings. Tran isn't the author of the contribution, he/she's the editor of the proceedings.
- Fixed. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ref. 72: National Research Council (U.S.). Elementary-Particle Physics Panel (1986). Elementary-particle Physics. National Academies Press. p. 62. ISBN 0309035767. Reference doesn't say anything about colloquial usage. Also, "the sea" is not a quote from there (although "a neutral sea of gluons" and "a sea of low-energy virtual quark-antiquark pairs" does occur on that page).
- "A neutral sea of gluons" and the like is good enough I say. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ref. 73 (Perkins) doesn't say anything about CERN experiments. Any reference for the quark stars etc. in the second part of the paragraph?
Some other statements I came across while checking on references:
- "Gell-Mann and Zweig postulated just three flavors of quarks—up, down and strange—to which they at first ascribed such properties as spin and electric charge." - why only "at first"? Surely quarks still have these properties?
- I think it's because later physicists added more properties such as weak isospin, etc... Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Section "Weak interaction": The second paragraph doesn't make clear the connection to the first paragraph. We're talking about W bosons in both cases, after all.
Markus Poessel ( talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Query: I've never understood why this article can't begin with a clear definition of a quark, such as
here or
here. Two subsequent sentences in the lead start with "because", and this article still lacks a clear and cohesive lead. Quarks are not rocket science: an older person who studied physics before quarks were observed should be able to read the lead and understand what changed when they were discovered and why it mattered. The lead isn't doing it; perhaps the authors don't remember how exciting the discoveries in the mid-90s were, or understand the context that should be established in the lead for older readers.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 04:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Headbomb and I have tried to address this. I think that the third sentence is way too soon to mention such technical terms as "color confinement", considering that most people reading the lead word-by-word are likely to have never heard of quarks before. (People who already know what a quark is are likely to just skim the lead through and go to the TOC.) Now, such people would know almost exactly what the heck we're talking about by the end of the third sentence, provided they know what "subatomic particle", "matter", "proton", "neutron", and "atomic nucleus" mean. I think that the second sentence ("In technical terms, quarks ...") could be moved below, too, but I'm not sure about where to place it. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, leaning Support Sandy beat me to it, dammit. I've been meaning to return to this article for three or four days. My main reservations two days ago (left unposted) were first that I didn't walk away from the lede knowing what a quark really was in relation to other subatomic particles and second that I wanted to see closure on all the objections by Markus to the refs. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 20:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The fractional electric charge is one of the most peculiar features of quarks, do you people think it might be mentioned in the lead somehow? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've mentionned it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment from nominator - I have been meaning to set to work on some of the concerns mentioned, but I have been extremely busy, and unable to even edit let alone attend to the FAC. I hope to be back in a few days; until then, I hope you all understand and can bear with me. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment—The mathematical notation and wording in the "Cabibbo angle and CKM matrix" section seems much too technical for the large majority of readers. I'm not clear what value this provides to an overview article. This by itself is sufficient to prevent me from supporting the article, without re-reading the remainder. Please see Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.— RJH ( talk) 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is practically unanimous consensus that the CKM matrix should be mentioned, but I didn't do that in the first place, because I tried to find a way to state what it is without using terms which only readers fluent in linear algebra and its application to QM can understand, such as "eigenstate", and without lying, but I failed. Is there a channeler around here who can ask Dick how he would explain that? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think even Feynman could explain the CKM matrix in less than three or four paragraphs. I mean you can simply say something like "The CKM matrix is a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks" (and it is said), but then you'd still haven't covered a thing about the CKM matrix and its importance. I would find it rather frustrating that this article fails its FAC because it is complete in coverage. There is no FAC criteria saying that articles should be dumbed down to the point that it becomes pablum.
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics} 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well sorry we have to disagree on this, but my answer is no.
Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible is a MoS criteria. I also think the notation fails
WP:Explain jargon. Removing (or explaining) mathematics that only makes sense to a university upperclassman in physics is hardly dumbing it down. Your argument is hyperbole, and my objection remains unresolved. If you are going to include mathematics of that nature in the article, then you must make an effort to render it comprehensible to the majority of readers. "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it." ;-) —
RJH (
talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (Yes, that guy managed to explain how the principle of stationary action is a consequence of interference between wave functions in a way that even my mother would likely understand, so maybe he did understand it to some extent.) Well, we might start drawing a pair of Cartesian axes, labeled |d> and |s>, and another pair rotated by 13°, labeled |d'> and |s'>, showing that |d'> equals 0.974 times |d> plus 0.226 times |s>... Maybe I'm getting somewhere. But I don't know how far
WP:NOR allows me to go with an intuitive explanation like that. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- In google books I seem to be able to find a number of works that explain the Cabibbo angle in a clearer manner. For example, just by writing the equation this way: , the math already seemed clearer, at least to me.—
RJH (
talk) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't see how that clarifies anything. or is exactly the same thing, with the later having the advanage of being the conventional way of writing things. As for google books, got links?. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- In google books I seem to be able to find a number of works that explain the Cabibbo angle in a clearer manner. For example, just by writing the equation this way: , the math already seemed clearer, at least to me.—
RJH (
talk) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (Yes, that guy managed to explain how the principle of stationary action is a consequence of interference between wave functions in a way that even my mother would likely understand, so maybe he did understand it to some extent.) Well, we might start drawing a pair of Cartesian axes, labeled |d> and |s>, and another pair rotated by 13°, labeled |d'> and |s'>, showing that |d'> equals 0.974 times |d> plus 0.226 times |s>... Maybe I'm getting somewhere. But I don't know how far
WP:NOR allows me to go with an intuitive explanation like that. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well sorry we have to disagree on this, but my answer is no.
Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible is a MoS criteria. I also think the notation fails
WP:Explain jargon. Removing (or explaining) mathematics that only makes sense to a university upperclassman in physics is hardly dumbing it down. Your argument is hyperbole, and my objection remains unresolved. If you are going to include mathematics of that nature in the article, then you must make an effort to render it comprehensible to the majority of readers. "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it." ;-) —
RJH (
talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think even Feynman could explain the CKM matrix in less than three or four paragraphs. I mean you can simply say something like "The CKM matrix is a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks" (and it is said), but then you'd still haven't covered a thing about the CKM matrix and its importance. I would find it rather frustrating that this article fails its FAC because it is complete in coverage. There is no FAC criteria saying that articles should be dumbed down to the point that it becomes pablum.
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics} 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[78]](/info/en/?search=File:Mayer-Vietoris_naturality.png){kind=link}
Oppose—I was ready to support, but started to find too great a density of issues in the prose to do so. It requires another copy-edit by someone fresh to the text.
- "Quarks (and antiquarks) are the only known particles whose electric charge is a fractional multiple of the elementary charge, although this can never be directly observed, as hadrons all have integer charge." The "as" causality has lost me, and it's still the lead. Can you be a little kinder to non-experts just here? Why does hadron integer charge preclude the observation of the elementary charge of a quark? (In addition, consider removing "all"; does "this" refer to "elementary charge" or "fractional multiple of the elementary charge"?
- Remove "the" from the last sentence in the lead.
- This is clunky: "plus the unobserved (as of 2008) Higgs boson"; why not "plus the Higgs boson (unobserved as of 2008)"?
- The flavour names are italicised in the first section, but roman in the lead. And are you going to use the symbols introduced in the lead?
- You italicize words when you introduce them for the first time (that's what the <dfn> tag does in HTML), no point to always italicize them. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- As for using the symbols, there is little point in using them in prose, but in places such as uud and in the indices of matrix entries they're useful. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- "All quarks of the same flavor are identical particles, meaning that all of their properties are the same." "Identical particles" links to a definition that does not specifically mention properties. Here, properties are elevated to the definitional. Why not "All quarks of the same flavor are identical particles with the same properties." Perhaps I'm not getting something here.
- "they are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, stating that no two fermions of the same flavor can ever simultaneously occupy the same state."—"..., which states that ...". What about three fermions? Why not remove "two"? Do you need "ever" as an amplifier?
- Fragmented sentence structure: "This contrasts with particles that mediate forces: such particles are bosons, meaning that they have integer spin; the Pauli exclusion principle does not apply to them." Again, the ", meaning that ..." formula is used, possibly misleading us.
- Given that "integer spin" is sometimes used as a definition of "boson", it's not misleading. But sometimes "symmetrical wave function" is used as a definition, so it isn't misleading even if the reader interprets "meaning" as "implying". Given that the two definitions are equivalent, there's no point in discussing which one is the right one. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- " This interaction is the reason why quarks attract each other to form hadrons". Do we need both "reason" and "why"?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22reason+why%22 gives over 33 million hits. It's a quite common idiom in English. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)(Fixed by Headbomb. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC))- Ah, yes. Because the majority of the population writes poorly, so should we. As a writing teacher, I am saddened by that argument.
Awadewit (
talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can see nothing poorer in "the reason why" than in "the person who", or "the place where". --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- They introduce redundancies and can be eliminated in favor of stronger, crisper writing. "This interaction is the reason
whyquarks attract each other to form hadrons" or "This interaction isthe reasonwhy quarks attract each other to form hadrons". ("France isthe placewhere he went." "The person who won the election was Obama" -> "Obama won the election", etc.). Budding Journalist 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- They introduce redundancies and can be eliminated in favor of stronger, crisper writing. "This interaction is the reason
- I can see nothing poorer in "the reason why" than in "the person who", or "the place where". --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. Because the majority of the population writes poorly, so should we. As a writing teacher, I am saddened by that argument.
Awadewit (
talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- "In the same way that the electric force is responsible for atoms attracting each other to form molecules, the strong interaction is responsible for protons and neutrons attracting each other to form atomic nuclei." The old noun + ing urchin, twice. "for the atomic attraction that brings atoms together to form molecules"? etc.
- "Elementary fermions are grouped into three generations, each one comprising two leptons and two quarks." Spot the redundant word. Tony (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
All that jazz about words and stuff is nice, but could we get to the real problems of this articles. Aka, the two citation needed tags, clarifying the contradiction between Gell-Man and Ne'eman in 1964 vs. Gell-Man and Zweig in 1964, writing in non-klingon, and addressing the ref issues? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I too am very keen on seeing Markus' concerns about the refs fully addressed. You know, Wikipedia is an imperfect process, and even at the FA level we field articles that probably could still be improved in some manner or other. And that's OK. But in general, in academic writing, the refs are sacrosanct, at least IMO. If they don't match the content, or if the content is not fully reflected in the refs, then the article cannot be FA. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Notice of withdrawal - I'm sorry to do this, but it's the right thing to do. I will be extremely busy until February because of personal commitments related to my schooling situation. I will literally be unable to edit any day until January 29. I therefore think it only right that I withdraw from this nomination, but it is certainly my intent to fix the problems and concerns brought up here as soon as I am able. I hope everyone understands. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment HB said: "I don't think even Feynman could explain the CKM matrix in less than three or four paragraphs. I mean you can simply say something like 'The CKM matrix is a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks' (and it is said), but then you'd still haven't covered a thing about the CKM matrix and its importance."
- Hey. People. I greatly fear my voice will be pooh-poohed here. In fact. I would bet on it. But it shouldn't. To paraphrase Feynman (if I followed the logic of the threads correctly): "I think I can safely say that this article doesn't need CKM in it." If it takes three or four paragraphs, then it needs its own article. End of story. Please see Wikipedia:Summary style, esp. the part that says: "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail." IF CKM isn't an example of a section where readers would want varying amounts of detail, then I don't know what is... So I repeat: This article does not need it or want it and should not have it. End of story. You can put in a few sentences about the importance of CKM and give its definition an oversimplified miss. It is safe and fair to give it a miss, since it needs its own article. Crap, you can even redlink CKM (I haven't looked to see if the article exists yet) and I would Support. Some person might Oppose based on 1b (Comprehensive), but that would be.. what's the word for "following rules in a single-minded manner, to the detriment of any meaningful measure of reality"? So. try to find a few sentences about the importance of CKM. Put in a definition like the one above about "a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks" and state explicitly that this is an oversimplification. Fix the references of this article (absolutely required) then PASS it FA then work on the CKM article. I hope I can make you see the light with respect to the fact that any topic which requires so much explication does not belong in this article. It belongs in its own article. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 01:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you noticed what is between the section header and the sentence "In 1963, Nicola Cabibbo ..."? --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Or for what matters what comes after? It was very jargon-y before, but things have been reworded to be more accessible to everyone. If you have a way to improve the section, go ahead I'm all ears, but it's completely unacceptable not to have a section on the CKM matrix, its signicance, its accounting of CP violation, and its prediction of the third generation of quarks. Not having it would be like not speaking of speciation on in the evolution article. By comparison, this section is IMO far more accessible to the layfolk than the Enzymatic function section in the Exosome complex article, riddle with unexplained jargon such as "These are all 3'-5' exoribonuclease domains, meaning the enzymes degrade RNA molecules from their 3' end." yet that one got featured too. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you noticed what is between the section header and the sentence "In 1963, Nicola Cabibbo ..."? --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ "American FactFinder". United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
-
^
"Spokane, WA MSA". Metro Area Membership Report. The Association of Religion Data Archives. 2000. Retrieved 2009-1-02.
{{ cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=( help)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:26, 31 January 2009 [1].
The Day the Violence Died
Did you know that the Simpsons episode "The Day the Violence Died" features Kirk Douglas and Suzanne Somers as guest stars? And that Lester and Eliza, older versions of Bart and Lisa Simpson, appear at the end of the episode?
- Images: One screenshot showing the two main characters of the episode, Bart and a newly introduced character, Chester J. Lampwick. Another screenshot shows Eliza and Lester, a different version of Lisa and Bart. The remaining two images are free.
- Sources: The references are straightforward, except perhaps a few that are only used for reviews of the episode—nothing controversial. These are: DVD Movie Guide, DVD Verdict, and DVD Times.
I have been working on this article for a few months now. It is my first television episode article, but nevertheless I think that all the bumps have been ironed out. Gary King ( talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Could you crop that Kirk Douglas pic to remove the "KIRK DOUGLAS" banner? Its just looks very odd, since that pic is only used to identify Douglas. indopug ( talk) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Featured articles are supposed to be examples of Wikipedia's best writing. This is all written in yada yada yada style—the eighteenth episode of the seventh season, Itchy and Scratchy show, the critics generally like it, so what? I won't change this to a support unless the article focuses on what is special about the episode, and finds something special enough to make the article interesting to the general reader. Looie496 ( talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article also talks about Kirk Douglas's involvement in the episode, which I consider to be pretty significant. Gary King ( talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Yada yada yada" isn't mentioned in
WP:WIAFA. –
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- (To Looie) On the contrary, the article should not *focus* on what makes the subject special. That would be providing undue weight. Now, should an article mention those things, and describe them without going into excessive detail? Definitely. I don't see what the problem is here, though. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in Simpsons episode articles at all, but I believe that the reason for Looie496's oppose is not backed up by the Featured Article criteria which does not require that an article has to focus on things which are "special". -- Novil Ariandis ( talk) 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I have to agree with Looie here and I'm puzzled by his critics. I'm not sure that yadayada is the best way to put it but let's face it: the content is very very thin. I don't particularly fault the authors: there's probably too little material out there to construct an article with any real depth. Most of the meta-commentary is about the controversial nature of the episode but it rests on pretty much nothing. Yes, one guy from the DVD Times labelled it as "controversial" but the rest of the article seems to take that bait and discuss that controversy as if it existed. But let's pause for a moment and ask: "what exactly is this controversy?" Two critics disagreed on how good the episode was? One critic said "yeah I liked some of it but not all of it"? That's not controversy, that's what happens everyday with critics and a film is not controversial because it got a thumbs up from Ebert and a thumbs down from Roeper. Then we have
- "In one of its jokes, Bart asks Homer for a large sum of money and Homer immediately pulls out his wallet. Oakley described the scene as "very controversial" among the show's producers; Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, in particular did not like it."
Now why exactly is that scene controversial? It seems like a pretty harmless gag and the controversy being referred to here seems to be that Groening didn't like it. Note that this controversy is between the show's producers and has nothing to do with the so-called controversy between the critics. The section on the episode's reception is based on a handful of reviews seemingly picked at random and this again shows that there's just not enough in-depth commentary out there to build an article that's not a collage of factoids. The last sentence of the article is a great example of this problem. Scholarly discussion of the episode probably took place during that class at Columbia but the only trace we have of that is the student's favourite quote. Until we have access to non-superficial coverage of the episode, I can't see how this can be considered as exemplifying Wiki's best.
- PS: I just took a quick look at some of the other FA Simpsons episodes. I suppose people will argue that this candidate is just as good as the other FAs. I'm not sure I want to debate that because frankly some of these should go to FAR... Nevertheless, the best of them definitely have scholarly analysis and commentary about the episode. For instance, see the "Themes" sections in
The Joy of Sect or
Lisa the Skeptic.
Pichpich (
talk) 02:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is indeed very little out there to work with for this episode's article, but we tried our best. A "Themes" section is always nice, but when there isn't enough information for one, it cannot be created; I'd say that most recently promoted episode FAs don't have one, such as "
The Other Woman". Regarding the controversial stuff, there only seems to be a few mentions of controversy in the article, which seems to be the parts of the article that you are mostly focusing on. After reading your comment, I get the feeling that it is essentially just saying that the article can never become an FA because there isn't enough information? I can remove the university statement, if that helps; I think the article has enough reviews as it is. That information was originally included before I found other reviews that I could use for the article.
Gary King (
talk) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- A Google Books search reveals
slim pickings.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- When put it quotes,
it only returns 24 results, all of which I had already gone through before when writing this article.
Gary King (
talk) 03:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I am saying that the article can't become an FA for now. I'm not asking for information to be created, I'm just asking for a calm realization that this information doesn't exist. This plagues the article in many ways: there's the yadayada symptom and there's the "let's say the episode is controversial" symptom. The first is the result of scarcity of content with any depth, the second is the result of trying too hard to mask that scarcity. Some subjects simply shouldn't be featured articles and standards of content depth should be maintained. And lest I be thought of as a pop culture snob, just compare this article with the FA
Homer Simpson: it's not in the same league. Compare, say, the quality of the references. In The Day the Violence Died, the opinion of critic Colin Jacobson (reference 12) is used thrice. How deep is that opinion? On my browser
it takes five lines. The one sentence quote of critic Jennifer Malkowski (reference 14) is actually the sole sentence she ever wrote about the episode
[2]. Speaking of which, who's Jennifer Malkowski? You can see her profile
here. Note this funny little detail: everyone contributing on DVDverdict is facetiously referred to as a "judge"
[3] but the references in the article attribute the work to "Judge Malkowski". Ditto with reference 16: the two line quote of Dave Foster actually constitutes Mr Foster's entire take on the episode. Moreover (I just found out) he does not say that he considers the episode as controversial. He says that his singling out of this episode as subpar is likely to be controversial. And correct me if I'm wrong but this Dave Foster is not one of
the better known David Fosters. I'm not even sure why dvdmg, dvdverdict or dvdtimes should be considered as more authoritative sources than say your basic Simpsons fan site. So I'm sorry for being blunt but no, there's no way for me to envision this being a featured article any time soon.
Pichpich (
talk) 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you opposing because there is not enough available information, or because the reference quality is subpar?
Dabomb87 (
talk) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm getting to the point where I'm not even sure people read what I write. Let me try this again. The article is way below FA standards. It is short on content. A quarter of the article is a plot summary. Much of the discussion not related to the plot is based on a dubious notion of controversy. Many of the references hardly qualify as reliable. At least one name in the references is incorrect. The article misrepresents a quote to fit the "controversy" axis. The article has no depth, in part because a whole section is based on references with no depth. The article includes a photo of Kirk Douglas which was taken 50 years prior to production.
Pichpich (
talk) 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Short on content" isn't really helpful. Is the article not comprehensive, per the 1b criterion? The plot summary only takes up 18% of the article's prose. The controversy stuff is only the first paragraph of the Production section. Ealdgyth already checked out the references in this article. I fixed the name, the quote, and the image to one of 1978, so we're inching a bit closer to the present (all three quite trivial things to use as a reason to oppose). Gary King ( talk) 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm getting to the point where I'm not even sure people read what I write. Let me try this again. The article is way below FA standards. It is short on content. A quarter of the article is a plot summary. Much of the discussion not related to the plot is based on a dubious notion of controversy. Many of the references hardly qualify as reliable. At least one name in the references is incorrect. The article misrepresents a quote to fit the "controversy" axis. The article has no depth, in part because a whole section is based on references with no depth. The article includes a photo of Kirk Douglas which was taken 50 years prior to production.
Pichpich (
talk) 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you opposing because there is not enough available information, or because the reference quality is subpar?
Dabomb87 (
talk) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I am saying that the article can't become an FA for now. I'm not asking for information to be created, I'm just asking for a calm realization that this information doesn't exist. This plagues the article in many ways: there's the yadayada symptom and there's the "let's say the episode is controversial" symptom. The first is the result of scarcity of content with any depth, the second is the result of trying too hard to mask that scarcity. Some subjects simply shouldn't be featured articles and standards of content depth should be maintained. And lest I be thought of as a pop culture snob, just compare this article with the FA
Homer Simpson: it's not in the same league. Compare, say, the quality of the references. In The Day the Violence Died, the opinion of critic Colin Jacobson (reference 12) is used thrice. How deep is that opinion? On my browser
it takes five lines. The one sentence quote of critic Jennifer Malkowski (reference 14) is actually the sole sentence she ever wrote about the episode
[2]. Speaking of which, who's Jennifer Malkowski? You can see her profile
here. Note this funny little detail: everyone contributing on DVDverdict is facetiously referred to as a "judge"
[3] but the references in the article attribute the work to "Judge Malkowski". Ditto with reference 16: the two line quote of Dave Foster actually constitutes Mr Foster's entire take on the episode. Moreover (I just found out) he does not say that he considers the episode as controversial. He says that his singling out of this episode as subpar is likely to be controversial. And correct me if I'm wrong but this Dave Foster is not one of
the better known David Fosters. I'm not even sure why dvdmg, dvdverdict or dvdtimes should be considered as more authoritative sources than say your basic Simpsons fan site. So I'm sorry for being blunt but no, there's no way for me to envision this being a featured article any time soon.
Pichpich (
talk) 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- When put it quotes,
it only returns 24 results, all of which I had already gone through before when writing this article.
Gary King (
talk) 03:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- A Google Books search reveals
slim pickings.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is indeed very little out there to work with for this episode's article, but we tried our best. A "Themes" section is always nice, but when there isn't enough information for one, it cannot be created; I'd say that most recently promoted episode FAs don't have one, such as "
The Other Woman". Regarding the controversial stuff, there only seems to be a few mentions of controversy in the article, which seems to be the parts of the article that you are mostly focusing on. After reading your comment, I get the feeling that it is essentially just saying that the article can never become an FA because there isn't enough information? I can remove the university statement, if that helps; I think the article has enough reviews as it is. That information was originally included before I found other reviews that I could use for the article.
Gary King (
talk) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Image review - Fair use images meet WP:NFCC and the other two images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit ( talk) 02:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments — File:Kirk Douglas.png: there is no doubt the movie (and hence its screenshots) is in the public domain; however, is it appropriate to refer to a 1952 image of the actor (36 years old then), when it is his 80-year-old self (whose appearance differs from his younger screen persona) who provided the guest voice in this cartoon episode? Jappalang ( talk) 04:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are other images available of Kirk, but I think this is the best one. For example, File:Kirk Douglas 1978.jpg is good, but it is really small. I have added a "seen here in 1952" note in the image caption just in case. Gary King ( talk) 15:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'll make no bones that I'm not a fan of Simpsons FAs. Not because of how many there are; instead, because they rarely meet the criteria. Pagesize.js gives the size of this article at 18.5KB. My baseline for comprehensiveness of episode articles is , where l is the length of the episode in minutes, and s is the size of the article. This article is currently 1.5KB below my baseline. The Simpsons is one of the most influential television programmes in history. It must be possible to write more than is currently here for this episode. Sceptre ( talk) 04:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:08, 25 January 2009 [28].
Vector space
- Nominator(s): Jakob.scholbach ( talk)
I'd like to nominate this article for FAC. It has passed its good article nomination, has had a peer review, whose comments have since been included. I believe the article to meet the FA criteria. Principal contributors in terms of edit counts are myself and Silly rabbit. Thank you for the review.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob.scholbach ( talk • contribs) 15:52, January 17, 2009
Opposeper criterion 1.(c). Just looking at the lead:- ... tuples of real numbers such as Euclidean vectors ... – and " Euclidean vector" is about physical vectors. The electric field vector at the point one metre above my centre of mass as of 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) is not a triple of numbers per se. (It can be specified by a triple of numbers if you choose a basis). BTW, don't assume that everyone knows what the heck a tuple is. This is the second paragraph of the lead. See WP:NOT PAPERS, point 5 (and note that it is a policy, not a guideline).
- ... they are completely specified by a single
number called
dimension. I think this is supposed to mean that all vector spaces with the same dimension are isomorphic to each other; but that's not how someone who doesn't already know this would understand this sentence.
And, even with my interpretation, I think this only applies to finite-dimensional vector spaces.- FYI, it applies to all vector spaces.
Algebraist 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- (I'm striking that out then. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC) BTW, out of curiosity, how does one prove that? Does one need the axiom of choice? --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
- Yes. The statement that every vector space has a dimension is ZF-equivalent to full AC. Algebraist 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- (I'm striking that out then. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC) BTW, out of curiosity, how does one prove that? Does one need the axiom of choice? --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
- FYI, it applies to all vector spaces.
Algebraist 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I won't even bother to finish reading it. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do I understand you right, Army1987, that you see a factual error in the lead section? By the guideline you cite yourself, the lead should be an accessible overview, detailed explanations on choices of bases should (and do) come in the body of the article. While Euclidean vectors are ad hoc a physical concept, they do convey the right understanding of (mathematical) vectors and vector spaces, and were indeed one of the historical roots of them, so I think it is appropriate to mention them at this point.
- As for "they are completely specified by a single
number called
dimension." I fail to see what possible wrong intuition could be implied by that wording, but perhaps a layman reviewer could tell?
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- @ Euclidean vectors: I have reworded this a little. Notice, though, that the corresp. article says "In three dimensional Euclidean space (or R3), vectors are identified with triples of numbers corresponding to the Cartesian coordinates of the endpoint". Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 18:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps write, instead of "vector spaces are completely specified by a single number called their dimension" (which is hard to "visualize" by a non-mathematician), write "for each natural number n and each field K, all vector spaces over K having dimension n are isomorphic, i.e the "same". In particular, this implies that all vector spaces over a particular field of scalars, are completely specified by a single number called the dimension.". --
PS
T 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- That wouldn't cover the infinite-dimensional case. Algebraist 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the wording of the first sentence I cited implies that Euclidean vectors are a particular type of tuples of natural numbers, while the reverse is true. As for the "infinite-dimensional case", in the current version "number" does link to
cardinal number, although anybody who doesn't follow that link won't consider infinity to be a number. (If a way to address these issues occurs to me, I'll point it out.) --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 02:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I have reworded it to avoid the implication made you are referring to. As for the possibly infinite dimension: I also think that lay readers won't think of infinity (or even a particular type of it, countable/uncountable) as a number. However, it would be less correct to write, say: "They are specified by a number called dimension, which may be infinite.", because this implies that all spaces of infinite dimension are isomorphic, which is not true. At the moment I don't see a good way of a) not telling what a
cardinal number is (as opposed to the every-day meaning of number) and b) making a correct statement. We could just remove that part of the sentence. What do you think is best?
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- For now I've just unhidden the word "cardinal" from that link, but it should still be made clearer. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 11:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I chose to remove that bit of information. As I saw when re-reading the "motivation and definition" section, the possibility of being infinite is mentioned, and the precise statement (i.e. mentioning "cardinality" is given below), so this bit of information may be omitted in the lead.
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your recent change, which is better than what we had before. I trimmed it down a bit. I hope that settles this matter? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I chose to remove that bit of information. As I saw when re-reading the "motivation and definition" section, the possibility of being infinite is mentioned, and the precise statement (i.e. mentioning "cardinality" is given below), so this bit of information may be omitted in the lead.
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- For now I've just unhidden the word "cardinal" from that link, but it should still be made clearer. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 11:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I have reworded it to avoid the implication made you are referring to. As for the possibly infinite dimension: I also think that lay readers won't think of infinity (or even a particular type of it, countable/uncountable) as a number. However, it would be less correct to write, say: "They are specified by a number called dimension, which may be infinite.", because this implies that all spaces of infinite dimension are isomorphic, which is not true. At the moment I don't see a good way of a) not telling what a
cardinal number is (as opposed to the every-day meaning of number) and b) making a correct statement. We could just remove that part of the sentence. What do you think is best?
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've struck out the "Oppose" as the lead has been improved. If I have time to take a more careful look at the rest of the article, I'll decide whether to support. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - The section on vector bundles is good but has some flaws. For example, to explain why the Mobius line bundle is different from the cylinder globally (i.e why the bundle is non-trivial), the section refers to
orientable surfaces. While this is OK if you are dealing with smooth bundles, it is not in this case. Orientability is a property of differentiable manifolds and since "looks like" in the image caption links to
homeomorphism, you are not in actual fact explaining why this is a trivial bundle (homeomorphisms do not necessarily preserve orientability). In effect, orientability only distinguishes differentiable manifolds but not topological spaces that are also differentiable manifolds (and I think you are dealing with the category of topological spaces here). Some parts of the section have to be rewritten. Note that, it is indeed true that globally the Mobius strip is not homeomorphic to the cylinder but the current explanation is not correct. --
PS
T 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- One can define orientability as a purely topological property of manifolds. Orientability#Topological definitions mentions some ways of doing this. Algebraist 10:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- No. You might want to read the article Algebraist is referring to. It says (correctly) "A compact n-manifold M is orientable if and only if the top homology group, , is isomorphic to ". A similar statement holds for non-compact manifolds, where on has to consider
(co)homology with compact support. Homology groups are a purely topological invariant, i.e., given a homeomorphism M → N, the groups are isomorphic. Therefore the statement in the article is right.
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 15:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I myself work in homology theory (please don't attack (in the second last sentence you implied more than just "I don't know what a topological invariant is")). It is just some parts of differential topology which I am not familiar with. I might be confused but isn't it true that the map f(x, y) = (−x, y) is a homeomorphism of the plane, whereas it has negative Jacobian determinant and therefore is not orientation preserving? --
PS
T 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, homeomorphisms need not preserve orientation, but they do preserve orientability. Algebraist 22:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I myself work in homology theory (please don't attack (in the second last sentence you implied more than just "I don't know what a topological invariant is")). It is just some parts of differential topology which I am not familiar with. I might be confused but isn't it true that the map f(x, y) = (−x, y) is a homeomorphism of the plane, whereas it has negative Jacobian determinant and therefore is not orientation preserving? --
PS
T 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- No. You might want to read the article Algebraist is referring to. It says (correctly) "A compact n-manifold M is orientable if and only if the top homology group, , is isomorphic to ". A similar statement holds for non-compact manifolds, where on has to consider
(co)homology with compact support. Homology groups are a purely topological invariant, i.e., given a homeomorphism M → N, the groups are isomorphic. Therefore the statement in the article is right.
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 15:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've been watching this thread. In partial defense of PST, I would note that at Orientability#Topological definitions, two of the definitions are somewhat dubious here. The first says a surface is not orientable if there is an embedded Moebius band. The second says that transition functions preserve orientation. Both rather beg the question! However Jakob has centred the point that this is a topological invariant, even if it is hard to make that intuitively clear. Consequently that would clearly be the wrong way to explain the issue in this article. The current article doesn't attempt such an explanation and I am happy with the current text. Geometry guy 23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment (I don't know the best way to express my opinion without sounding too critical. Please know that all I want to accomplish by this post is to give some feedback.) While the article is well developed (in fact, very well-developed), it feels very short in many important points or facts: categorical point of view (a sentence is nearly enough), 1st, 2nd (and 3rd?) isomorphism theorems, their roles in homological algebras, why historically algebraists preferred to study rings or fields instead of vector spaces, important examples of vector spaces over fields other than real or complex, rank-nullity theorem, algebras (as generalization of vector spaces), application to physics (mostly in forms of Hilbert spaces), roles of vector spaces in the study of division algebras skew-fields, meaning and significance of basis changes (for example we are often interested in how two vector spaces are isomorphic not just isomorphic) relationship between annihilators and orthogonal complement, applications of duality in linear algebra (e.g., min-max principle, not only ones in functional analysis), a viewpoint of a vector space as an abelian Lie algebra, geometrical issues such as convexity with connection to dimensionality. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuyaMurata ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments and, BTW, absolutely no need to apologize!
- I have two general responses to your points: First, I have to say what you are probably already aware of, that the article has a limited total length. With this in mind, and with the aim to give reasonable amount (i.e., sufficiently to be able to explain things briefly, not just mention them) of space to must-have topics, it is difficult to include everything that comes to mind. Second, esp. where applications are concerned: in some sense most mathematics, esp. most applied mathematics can more or less reasonably be formulated in terms of vector spaces. I think the article has to focus on applications etc. where mainly (or only) the vector space structure of some given entity is used or studied. Using this guideline, topics effectively talking about polynomial rings, say, should be treated very briefly here or even not at all.
- categorical point of view: The article says "The existence of kernels and images is part of the statement that the category of vector spaces (over a fixed field F) is an abelian category." What else do you think is important? I personally think the category of v.sp. is of comparatively little importance, compared to, say, the category of modules over some ring, (both for this article and for math in general) since it is so simple. One could think about mentioning semisimplicity, but I'm not sure that is a core piece of information.
- Is reworded and slightly expanded. I think that's as much as we can afford. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Isomorphism theorems: we do have the 1st one. I'll think of a rewording so as to allude to the other ones.
- Done. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Role of vsp in homological algebra: what do you have in mind, specifically?
- Historical interest in rings vs. vsp: I have to say I'm not historically versed enough to even make sense of that point. At least to the modern understanding, as it is, vector spaces are of a pretty much different flavor than rings or fields, right? Please expound a bit...
- Vsp over other fields than R or C. What do you think of?
- rank-nullity: well, we have the first isomorphism theorem, which is the same thing. I'll try to reword that part (also w.r.t the 2nd and 3rd iso thm.).
- Done. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- algebras: there is a whole section on that. What do you miss specifically?
- applications to physics/Hilbert spaces: likewise (see the final paragraph in the Hilbert space section)
- basis change: OK. that's a bit short. I'll expand that a bit.
- First draft done (in the section on linear maps). I'll revisit later. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've also added an illustration depicting different choices of bases. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 14:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- division algebras: I think about how to add a sentence to the algebra section.
- I have added a statement about f.d. real division algebras (in the section on vector bundles, after K-theory). Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- annihilators & orthogonal complement: I think that does not belong here, I would put that to inner product or bilinear form.
- applications in linear algebra: that sounds reasonable
- I have added a word about the minimax theorem. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- vector spaces as abelian Lie algebras: Do you mean "[x, y] := 0"? I don't think that's an important piece of information here. Where is that relevant? If anywhere, I'd put that to Lie algebra.
- convexity: perhaps that should go to topological vector space? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment
- I've made some comments about the reciproqual vector spaces in the peer review that haven't been adressed. You might want to look into that. I may or may not opine later, but not having a section on the peciproqual vector spaces is a somewhat major issue.
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics} 06:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Somehow your comment in the PR went unnoticed by me. Sorry about that. I'll put a sentence about that into the Fourier section, perhaps alluding to the general principle behind the Fourier transform. (A section is clearly more than we can afford).
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have added a sentence about that, together with its mathematical explanation, Pontryagin duality. All right? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Somehow your comment in the PR went unnoticed by me. Sorry about that. I'll put a sentence about that into the Fourier section, perhaps alluding to the general principle behind the Fourier transform. (A section is clearly more than we can afford).
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This isn't a particularly esoteric mathematical concept; it ought to be possible to explain it to laymen in the lead much, much better than we do now. I realise that such leads are not uncommon in mathematical articles, but, per WP:LEAD, they have no right to be, and we ought to at least make an attempt to explain it in a way that, say, an A-level mathematics student, or first year university student could understand. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 06:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I share your wish to make the article esp. the lead as accessible as possible. The following reviewer gives some concrete points which I will address. Could you please point out other parts of the lead or elsewhere where you think accessibility is not as good as possible? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The first section of the lead is now better. I realize that the following ones do contain technical terms like "analytic geometry" or "matrices", but I think we can't avoid these totally. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's look at the first illustration, as I think it shows one of the problems with the article. If you know what it's doing, it's clear. If you don't, you won't understand vector addition or scalar multiplication after looking at it. A much better way to illustrate it might be show v. Show w. Show v+w as w coming off of the endpoint of v. Show 2w as 2 seperate ws, one after another.
- For these kind of esoteric articles, you really need someone with a decent background, but little knowledge of the specific concepts that can ask you questions and force you to clarify as much as possible. I don't think it's at quite that level yet.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the illustration does show two copies of w, and from looking at the image, it should be clear (without background, I hope) that the new arrow is twice as long as the old one (In addition I reworded "scaled" in the image caption to "stretched"). Likewise the image does show a (faint) copy of w which is appended at the end of v and the sum is the diagonal of the parallelogram constructed this way. I fail to see how that could be clearer. (You might object that the faint copies of w and v used for the parallelograms don't carry arrowheads, but this is simply because the arrowheads would overlap and it would be hard to distinguish what goes on). Additionally to that illustration, we (now) do have more illustrations (in the motivation section) that explain the matter once more (and giving the explanation of the constructions in words). (Also, there are subarticles on vector addition and scalar multiplication. They could (and should) be better, but this is a different story). I stand ready to be corrected, but I feel the reader has to have a certain willingness to think about what might be new to her/him, and to accept an "esoteric article" like this as an invitation à la danse (macabre? ;), not the dance lesson (including instructor) itself. Jakob.scholbach ( talk)
14:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. In line with the above, I'd like to say that the objective of a lead section is not (and cannot be, IMO) to make the topic understandable to the last bit, but give an overview. More details are to come (and do come, as pointed out above) in the body. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 14:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:LEAD: "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.", and WP:NOT PAPERS: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field." Seriously. We're not talking about quantum gravity. It is completely possible to explain what a vector space is in a way that the average junior high school student could understand (provided he cared about it), contains no lies, and is no longer than four paragraphs. Probably such a junior high school student already uses the concept "subconsciously" (see my comment of 15:24, 21 January 2009, below); he just doesn't know it's called this way. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- (<--)I'm aware of these guidelines and share their intentions. But, perhaps, let's not dig our heels in guidelines and their exegesis. Rather, where precisely does the lead tease the reader or does not explain important facts? Does it contain any lies?
- The lead section image is a (pretty brief and in several senses sketchy) explanation of the two operations. Explaining them in more detail and with more care later is perfectly appropriate (and without alternative). Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose For the same reason as Shoemaker's Holiday. I think the lead should be readable by a reader coming just out or still being in a high school. The first paragraph of the lead for example:
<quote>A vector space is a mathematical structure formed by a collection of objects, called vectors, that may be scaled and added. In a vector space these two operations adhere to a number of axioms that generalize common properties of pairs and triples of real numbers, and of vectors in the plane or three-dimensional Euclidean space. </quote>
- "scaled" should be "multiplied by a number".
- "generalize common properties of pairs and triples of real numbers" should be "generalize common properties of numbers"
- "vectors in the plane or three-dimensional Euclidean space" should be "vectors in geometry"
Of course footnote and link to the exact mathematical meaning can be added but the non mathematician should not be repelled by the lead.
- The first picture is awful. The caption carries much too much information which is not needed at this point. The vectors are missing arrows. I prefer fig 2 but maybe without coordinate axis.
- The first example presented in the example section should be a very simple and wellknown example such as vectors in physics (addition of velocities or forces) or in 2D geometry. That the first example mixes functions and fields is a very bad idea. (Fields are simple for those who know what it is but exhausting for the layman which has to click on the link to understand what it could be).
Vb 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.168.116.224 (
talk)
- Strongly disagree with the above comments Let me note that you must know what a vector is before you learn about vector spaces. If you don't know what a vector is, I don't see the point in learning about vector spaces, anyhow! I agree that university students should understand it but certainly not high school students who are not in their final year. In my experience, I have seen people who simply don't understand the "abstract concept" of a vector. Indeed, it is something different compared to what people would think, i.e counterintuitive, because heaps of people think mathematics is centered about number theory. On the other hand, vectors are a very natural concept. So for someone to understand them, they shouldn't sit at the computer and read the screen blankly: certainly not. They should take the time for thinking about what is written in the article and connect it with their prior knowledge. Learning to think is also one of those concepts that must be conquered at some point; being introduced to vector spaces may teach this important skill.
- On the same note, "scaled" should not be "multiplied by a number". Using the latter may lead to confusions because many people think that the only numbers are integers; some know of the existence of complex numbers: but there are other fields. We must not "put down" the generality of vector spaces. Similarly, I disagree with your second point. Many people (including those who know calculus) think that R is not a vector space. They simply think "space" must be something complex: i.e something having high dimension. So "pairs and triples of real numbers" may allow them to relate to their prior knowledge of vectors. Again, I don't really like the idea of representing vectors as arrows. Although in a sense, the represent direction, we could write them in bold face. Note that using the convention of "arrows" will lead to difficulties when we consider an arbitrary field over itself. Because in this case, an element of the vector space is a vector, iff it is a scalar. Your last point is already taken care of. Examples of fields are given, and it is also noted that the scalars belong to the field. I think that it all one needs to know.
- The 2D geometry example is in the 'motivation' section. Do you think it's out of place there? Algebraist 09:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Response to 213.168.116.224: thanks for your points. I'll try to adress them as much as possible, without removing or falsifying facts. For example, "generalize common properties of numbers" does not give the right intuition (also not for a high-school person). I'll respond in more detail soon. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The whole first section of the lead is reworked. Do you think this is OK now? I will brush over the motivation section next, focussing on concrete physical examples (forces or velocities). Also the lead section image is now clearer. (I uploaded File:Vector_addition_and_scaling.svg, but somehow the labels of the arrows have black background. Does anybody know how to fix this? I used inkscape.) Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the problem. I had run into this before and was supplied with the fix: there's a problem with text sometimes, so you need to convert all the text to a path (in Inkscape, go to "Path -> Object to path"). I also fixed the scalar multiplication symbol.
RobHar (
talk) 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The motivation section is now rewritten and should be accessible. Please check it out. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 07:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed the problem. I had run into this before and was supplied with the fix: there's a problem with text sometimes, so you need to convert all the text to a path (in Inkscape, go to "Path -> Object to path"). I also fixed the scalar multiplication symbol.
RobHar (
talk) 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to respond here to Point-set topologist. I am a math teacher in high school and the topic "vector space" has a short section in the math book we use. The topic is therefore not only usefull to univesity students but also at high school. At this level, even if the students 'should' know what a real number is, it is often the case that they dislike to use such term they consider pedantic. The same is true for Euclidian geometry. Today students don't even know Euclide at his axioms but all still do Euclidean geometry without knowing it: they simply call it geometry. Thus I believe it is superfluous to tell the reader this is here Euclidean geometry. However a foot note or a link such as geometry would be enough. I think the arrows should not be used for labelling vectors but in the first picture arrowheads should be used! (just as in Fig. 2) Vb ( talk) 13:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- To Point-set topologist: But this is the article about vectors in general. Vector (mathematics) redirects here, as it would make little sense to have a separate article for that. So, as for "you must know what a vector is before you learn about vector spaces", it's this article that should explain "what a vector is", at least until someone creates a separate article Vector (mathematics) (which would be quite pointless IMO). As for "scaled" vs "multiplied by a number", the current version of the lead has the same problem, too. But I'm trying to address it. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I want to note that there are intelligent high school students who would appreciate the notion of a vector space. But most do not. You see, some high school students do maths for the sake of doing mathematics and certainly would think of vectors as doing "calculations". Indeed, in most high schools, vectors are merely added and multiplied (dot/inner product) without actually understanding them. Of course, they are also taught in the context of physics. But vectors are not physics. They are certainly used in physics but we should not give the wrong impression. As you are a high school teacher, you will probably know high school students better than me (I haven't seen the animals since I was at school :)) but I am a bit dubious that a high school textbook has a short section on vector spaces. Could you note the name of the book? Does it refer to fields (the algebraic structure)? Not that I am saying that students can't handle this, but I would be interested to know the book.
- Without knowing about vectors in 2-space or 3-space, the concept of a vector space is not very intuitive. I.e, you won't get a feel for vector spaces. That is what I meant.
- The book we use here in Germany is the very standard Lambacher-Schweizer Analytische Geometrie und lineare Algebra. Examples of vector spaces are presented which are not (as in the rest of the book) Euclidean vectors (although the word Euclidean vector never appears in the book). The example I discuss with my student is the space of polynoms with a given grade. Other space are cited but they are in fact simply R^n with n>3. I think the student who wants to learn bout this topic must not be a paricularly intelligent one but simply a pupil who wants to prepare a talk in order to improve his participation note! This student does not really remember what is "commutativity" or what is the difference between a real and a rational number even if he uses this concept in the day-to-day practice. About the recent modification of the lead. The first Figure and its caption is now good and explain quite well what is meant by adding and scaling. In my opinion the wording "multiplied by a number" should replace "scaled" and not be added to it. However I think that, now that the picture has been improved, the word "scaled" may be good enough. On the other hand, I agree with the comments which appeared on the talk page and think that putting the physics examples in the first paragraph of the lead enhance much too much the importance of this POV on he meaning of vectors. What I suggest is to put this example (which should be much expanded) as the first example within the example section. Moreover I think the interpretation of vectors as translations is missing in the example section. Please also refrain to use the word Field in the first example. Of course a field is a structure which is simpler than vector space but not for pupils! Vb ( talk) 10:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I have some doubts about the history -- it doesn't match the way I learned it. As I understood it, the basic motivation for the concept was a desire to be able to do arithmetic in Euclidean N-space. The first attempts tried to take off from the fact that complex numbers allow arithmetic in 2-space. However, attempts to generalize complex arithmetic to higher dimensions broke down on the fact that there is no natural multiplication operation. Hamilton's quaternions were a way to make it work for N=4, but gave up on some critical properties and still didn't generalize. Finally in the late 1800s mathematicians realized that the proper thing to do is to give up on a VxV->V type of multiplication, and settle for two other types of multiplication, scalar mult and the inner product. Looie496 ( talk) 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Although the modern notion of a vector in physics owes much to Hamilton, Gibbs, and Heaviside, the notion of a vector space does not appear to share exactly the same lineage. Hermann Grassmann first introduced the general notion in the same year as Hamilton introduced his quaternions, but it was several decades until Peano and Whitehead ultimately formalized Grassmann's notion of a vector space. My understanding of the genesis of the modern idea of a vector space comes chiefly from the historical notes to Bourbaki's Algebra. To quote: "Peano, one of the creators of the axiomatic method and also one of the first mathematicians fully to appreciate the work of Grassmann, gives as early as 1888 (...) the axiomatic definition of vector spaces (...) over the field of real numbers ..." siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Silly rabbit; which also concurs with the historical sources cited in the section. Looie, can you present a reference that backs up your point? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm speaking from memory—but
quaternion#History gives an account that more or less matches what I wrote, I think.
Looie496 (
talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- What you wrote (and what is in the quaternion article) is correct as far as it goes, but as Silly rabbit points out, that's the history of vectors as in physics and vector calculus. The history of vectors as in algebraic vector spaces is somewhat different. Algebraist 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm speaking from memory—but
quaternion#History gives an account that more or less matches what I wrote, I think.
Looie496 (
talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
To PST re "Without knowing about vectors in 2-space or 3-space, the concept of a vector space is not very intuitive.": I am playing a strategy game in which you have four kinds of resources: wood, clay, iron and wheat. It is quite intuitive that you can add "100 units of wood, 50 clay, 23 iron and 75 wheat" and "15 wood, 40 clay, 70 iron and 30 wheat" to get "175 wood, 90 clay, 93 iron and 105 wheat", or multiply the latter by two to get "30 wood, 80 clay, 140 iron, and 60 wheat". This is not really a vector space because you can only have an integer amount of any resource, but it wouldn't be any less intuitive if you could. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comments on the lead. After being asked to comment on the lead, I read the article quite closely this afternoon. WP:LEAD states: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." In articles on advanced mathematics (and even though vector spaces are extremely standard mathematics, the abstraction involved is advanced), achieving both of these goals in four paragraphs, while remaining as accessible as possible is a very difficult task. However, Wikipedia is not a textbook: it is not the purpose of the lead to teach readers what a vector space is, but to whet their appetite to learn more.
- At the moment the lead does not adequately summarize the article: it focuses unnecessarily on forces, and on applications in analysis, without covering adequately the fundamental role of vector spaces in linear algebra. I realise that my view may contradict the view of some other editors, who are concentrating on making the lead easier to understand for the lay reader. That is a painful aspect of FAC: it is impossible to please everyone.
- However, as a positive suggestion, should this FAC fail, one solution to the difficulty of both summarizing the article and providing an accessible introduction is to spin out the lead (summary style) to an " Introduction to vector spaces" article (or possibly an " Introduction to linear algebra"). This would make it easier to make the lead an encyclopedic summary of the topic , while providing an entrypoint for motivated high school students and similar readers. Geometry guy 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comments on the prose. In the spirit that FAC is a painful experience, the main thing that struck me on my read-through is that the prose is woeful. Sorry, I should say there is lots of good stuff, but there are patches that are painful to read, even for someone who is extremely familiar with vector spaces and knows what the prose is trying to say. I found myself banging my head in a
Quasimodo-like experience of "The prose! The prose!". This may be as painful for article editors to read as it is for me to say. So, let me add that tremendous work has gone into this article and it is well on its way to being featured, following the path of
Group (mathematics), which was featured thanks to the drive of the same main editor. Bravo! I wish I had the time and energy to do as much to help. I would be happy to copyedit the article, but realistically, I can't do that for at least two weeks, so let me highlight some issues. In any case I'd rather copyedit the article in a minor way rather than make big changes.
- Encyclopedic language is not flowery. I can see that considerable effort has been made to use encyclopedic rather than textbook prose. However, encyclopedic language is neither flowery nor convoluted. Don't say "keystone" when you mean "central", "in the guise of" when you mean "as", "employed" when you mean "used". "Achieved" is shorter than "accomplished" and "provide" is more widely understood than "furnish". Other flowery usages include "envisaged", "encompasses", "conception", ...
- Use bland adverbs sparingly. "Historically", "today", "actually", "notably", "usually", "particularly", "especially", "essentially", "completely", "roughly", "simply". These can often be omitted, or replaced by prose which centres the point.
- Don't split infinitives needlessly. Sometimes they need to be split, but in most cases they don't. For instance, I would replace "To simultaneously encompass", by "To cover" or "To include".
- Avoid editorial opinion. Whenever you use an adjective of opinion, or comment on the importance of something, it is helpful to ask the question "according to whom?". Then you can decide whether to provide a source, or to rephrase. Adjectives used here include "important", "crucial", "frequent", "fundamental", "suitable", "useful", ...
- Avoid long noun phrases. They tend to lead to bad prose: "Resolving a periodic function into a sum of trigonometric functions forms a Fourier series, a technique much used in physics and engineering." is an example.
- Omit needless words. "certain" is usually not needed and "call for the ability to decide" is wordy.
- Use a consistent English variant: I see both "analog" and "honor" (American) and "idealised" (British).
- Finally, resist the temptation to tell the reader how to look at the subject. This happens at the beginning of quite a few sections:
- "Vector spaces have manifold applications as they occur in many circumstances, namely wherever functions with values in some field are involved."
- "'Measuring' vectors is a frequent need"
- "Bases reveal the structure of vector spaces in a concise way"
- "The counterpart to subspaces are quotient vector spaces." (Only makes sense to those who already know what it means.)
- Geometry guy 23:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Further comments.
- Why does the history stop at c. 1920? The relations to set theory could be discussed here, as could modern developments in homological algebra, Hilbert spaces (quantum mechanics), Banach spaces (Gowers).
- The category of vector spaces is not boring, nor well understood, even if the isomorphism classes of objects are. See Quiver (mathematics).
- The determinant of a linear map is not defined, but used.
- The motivation section is poorly written: if "force" is a motivation, why not explain that addition of vectors corresponds to combining forces?
- Hamel and Schauder bases are not clearly delineated. Too much effort is expended making the definition of Hamel basis apply in the infinite dimensional case. Further, refering to the existence of Hamel bases (and hence the axiom of choice) as "fact" is point of view.
- Despite all my complaints, however, I must say that Wikipedia readers will be extremely fortunate to find such a comprehensive article on such an important concept. Geometry guy 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Withdrawal of the nomination: I would take the opportunity to thank again everybody involved in the recent development of the article, be it in form of critial comments at FAC, at the talk page or working on the article itself. I think it is better to amend all these things carefully (even if I believe the article has improved substantially, and beyond the level I was even thinking of prior to FAC) and especially without haste. To do so, I'd like to withdraw the nomination. I'll work on the issues raised above and may renominate it for FAC at some point. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 08:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some feedback
I'm putting my response here for the ease of edit (for me and others). By categorical point of view, I was thinking of, for example, the fact that the category of finite-dimensional vector spaces is equivalent to the category of matrices (see Equivalence_(category_theory)). This is very important because it explains, for example, why in linear algebra one essentially doesn't have to study vector spaces as much as matrices. (I also think the cat of finite-dimensional vector spaces is equivalent to that of finite sets.) Also, one may start with a quotient map (i.e., a surjective linear map) instead of quotient spaces and use the universality to show this definition is essentially equivalent to the more usual one. The view points such as the above are abstract but are indispensable if one wants to study vector spaces seriously. On the other hand, I don't think, as the article currently does, mentioning the category of vector spaces is additive is important, for it is very trivial. It is important to mention the applications of isomorphisms theorem rather than how to prove them.
Next, about annihilators. (This is an important concept and the article has to discuss it) I think I was getting at is that the possibility of defining a bilinear form (or sesquilinear one) on a vector space. When studying vector spaces or related stuff in application, bilinear forms defined on them are often useful and indispensable. An inner product is one example, of course, but it doesn't scale well to infinite-dimensional vector spaces (which may not have topology, like infinite-dimensional Lie algebras). So, one also uses natural pairs for V x V^*. (Though this isn't quite a bilinear form.) Anyway, my point is that we need a discussion on bilinear forms (probably a whole section on it). A basis can be chosen according to such a form, and actually that's often what one does; e.g., orthonormal basis. (I just noticed the article doesn't even mention dual basis, which is an important concept.)
Finally, on the balance. Yes, the article is fairly lengthy already, but I think we can make a significant cut by eliminating stuff on trivial facts or some linear algebra materials such as determinants. Doing that would likely diminish accessibility (and thus usefulness) of the article for a first-time learner of vector spaces. But that's something we can afford since the focus of the article should be on important topics not trivial ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuyaMurata ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- The category of finite dimensional vector spaces is not equivalent to the category of finite sets: the former has many more morphisms, and the latter is not even an additive category. Geometry guy 14:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:35, 3 January 2009 [97].
Quark
- Nominator(s): User:Anonymous Dissident
- previous FAC (00:50, 7 October 2008)
I'm here to try again. Myself and others have continued to do work towards the improving of this article; concerns cited last time mainly revolved around perceived problems with clarity and tone. Now that the article is slightly longer and more detailed, with a longer lead and clearer explanation, I'd hope that these problems would be fixed. While some of the omissions in content noted at the last FAC have been remedied, we have still taken care to give a comprehensive but not overly scientific coverage; this is, after all, an encyclopedia, and we wouldn't want a book length analysis of a topic that could become easily convoluted with too much advanced scientific and/or theoretical exploration. I'm perfectly happy to act upon any concerns mentioned. I just hope that this article will be deemed simple enough but detailed enough now; last time, we had one camp saying that the article wasn't written simply enough, while another was calling for greater technical expansion. It's my belief we have a better mix of both now. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Resolved issues
- Comment Lead is much better now. So is the overall prose. I would support the FAC nomination, but for one omission that I failed to spot last time. As noted on the talk page. The article does not mention the CKM matrix for the quark masses/ quark mixing. It is one of the most striking differences between quarks and leptons in the standard model. (in the SM the leptons have no generation mixing) Hopefully this can be corrected during this FAC round, because I feel overall the article is very strong. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 11:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
- I must confess I don't know bout that particular concept. I'll read some material on it today and tomorrow, and insert some information on it into the article then. I wouldn't want to add some ill-informed stuff right now. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well now, let's have a look. The lead needs some work to make it crisper, and the logic could be tightened. Avoid elegant variation (called, known as, named). Be consistent in style ( serial comma or no serial comma?). Try this alternative (references omitted):
In physics, a[See discussion below] A quark (pronounced /kwɔrk/ or /kwɑrk/) is a type of subatomic particle. Because of color confinement, most quarks only occur bound together in hadrons: composite particles such as protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.Quarks are of six different types, or flavors: up (symbol:
u
), down (
d
), charm (
c
), strange (
s
), top (
t
), and bottom (
b
). The up and down quarks are the lightest and most stable; as the constituents of protons and neutrons, they are primary and most abundant building blocks of matter. The unstable charm, strange, top, and bottom quarks decay rapidly, after formation in particle accelerators, cosmic rays, or similar high energy environments. For every quark flavor there is a corresponding antiquark: an antiparticle differing only in that some of its properties have the opposite sign. The properties of most quarks must be deduced from experiments on the hadrons they compose; but the top quark, decaying too rapidly to hadronize, is observed by identifying the particles it decays into. Some Big Bang theories postulate a quark-gluon plasma with single unbound quarks (including "free" top quarks), in the extremely hot early universe.The quark model was proposed independently by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964. Confirmation came in 1968, when electron–proton scattering experiments revealed three "sphere-like" regions in the substructure of the proton. In 1995 the last of the six, the top flavor, was observed at Fermilab.
- I might say more when I've read through the rest. Interesting!– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 11:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Such a concise style can become hard to read when it is full of technical terms. Phrase such as known as signal a reader that it is not expected that he has known of the term. I definately prefer the more gentle style of the current lead. Note that elegant variation refers to using different words for the same thing, not to using different phrases with a similar meaning in different contexts. (Imagine a text that describes complex reasoning that only used the word thus and never any of its synonyms consequently, so or therefore because they would constitute (in) elegant variation.) ( TimothyRias ( talk) 14:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
- Timothy, I agree that conciseness can be taken too far. I offer a much tighter version as a basis; anything that is then added might require specific justification. As for elegant variation, I disagree. It can apply to any wording, not just nouns (as your reference to "things" suggests). Perhaps this in unclear in our article; but it is plainly stated in its primary source, which begins like this: "We include under this head all substitutions of one word for another for the sake of variety,...". Fowler addresses nouns mainly, but gives a few examples like this: "I must ask the reader to use the same twofold procedure that I before requested him to employ in considering...—H. Sidgwick." Anyway, the contexts here are not different, as you seem to imply; and the varied words are quite near each other. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Timothy; we should give a definition of quark as soon as possible[1], but it cannot be made specific enough without using technical terms, and the In technical terms tells the reader "don't worry if you don't understand this now".
- [1] Not everyone would agree to call that a "definition", as it would also apply to gluinos, but given that the hypothesis of the existences of gluinos (and supersymmetric partners in general) is (IMO) largely speculative with very little or no empirical evidence, and that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, better not worry about that. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Army, it ought to be blindingly obvious that the terms are technical. Would anyone think they are the common terms of everyday life? Because they are likely to be unfamiliar, they are clearly linked. We should not patronise readers; we help them best by writing lucidly what they need to know.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - is "In physics" absolutely needed? I think the next clause, "A quark is a type of subatomic particle." encompasses that sentence perfectly (cf [98]) Sceptre ( talk) 14:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, be wouldn't that conflict with the also true statement that "A quark is the sound a duck makes"? Now, of course, I don't think anybidy would be confused by this. But it is a wikipedia best practice to establish the right context in the opening sentence. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 14:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
- There are other meanings, more serious that the cry of a gull (see Quark (disambiguation)); besides that, starting article with "In topic, subject is" is de-facto standard in Wikipedia, and it doesn't harm. It's obvious that we're not talking about a cheese here, but see WP:State the obvious. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not convinced of the way information about hadrons and strong interaction is scattered in several sections in different places in the article, but as soon as I figure out a better way to do that I'll fix the problem. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
:This is turning out to be far less trivial than I believed... -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[Done, see below -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)]
- Comment: Like Tim above, I also would mention the CKM matrix. And that color coded table still is an eyesore. I'll make a thourough review in the next few days, but it looks pretty solid. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Question - What exactly is Murray Gell-Mann holding in his hand? A lump of coal? A Ding Dong? It's hard to tell. Kaldari ( talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Further comments:
- Lead : Quarks are the only particles to experience all four interactions. This is mentioned in the "classification" section, but IMO this should also be in the lead.
- Is it accurate to describe Zweig as a co-proposer rather than an independent proposer or something to that effect? Co-proposer seem to imply that Zweig and Gell-Man collaborated on this.
- "However, this notion has been recently challenged in quantum chromodynamics by theories that include vacuum polarization and the coupling of quark hadrons to strange quarks in the vacuum.[41]" The reference given is from 1993. That's 15 years ago...
- "Current quark mass". I feel the term should be a bit clarified. "Current" could be interpreted to mean "the quarks of 2008's mass" instead of "flow".
- And I just have to reiterated that I really hate those nigh pointless colors in that table...
- In the color confinement section, more could be said about how the top quark's "non-hadronization leads to direct measurements of the mass. It says it's an exception, but stops there. I feel this leaves the reader wanting for more.
- Assymptotic freedom --> Mentionning that this got Wilczek et al. a nobel prize here would be fitting here I think.
- I think the note about the number of generations should be merged in the text.
- Should the image about the decay include "rarer" arrows from t to d and b to u?
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've done most of what you've requested. I removed the 15 year old material. It didn't seem very relevant and was representative of just one of the many fringe views on the topic. i think the colours are fine. I also didn't mention Wilczek; I don't necessarily object to a mention, but I couldn't see how that would fit well into the section, as we were right into the throes of a deep explanation when the freedom was mentioned, and noting that a Nobel Prize was won would kind of distract from that. I also don't really know what more information you want about top quark non-hadronization; there isn't much more to say, from what I know. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- And here are mine:
- I have attempted, and might have succeeded, in re-organizing the material about strong interaction. But since Murphy's law predicts a very high probability that I screwed something up, I saved my new version to User:Army1987/Quark. Might someone take a look at it? If there is nothing seriously wrong with it, it can be incorporated into the article.
- Hmm, I'm not sure. Could you outline exactly what you've done? I don't have the time to read through it all now, and I certainly don't have the time to actually compare the two side by side. From a quick glance, you've elected to place the material about hadronization first, and the "other" properties last. I don't think that's entirely sensical, myself, and, at least in that regard, I prefer the way the current article is structured. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- The point is keeping all the information about the same topic together. All those "below" links about gluons and sea quarks are not very reader-friendly. As it currently stands, the article introduces some of the concepts of QCD, then it discusses completely unrelated things such as spin, electric charge, etc., and then goes back to QCD to end explaining the concept which were introduced. Doesn't sound like a good structure to me. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've been thinking of a way of mentioning the CKM matrix, without stating either falsehoods or things that will be totally incomprehensible to the average encyclopedia reader. I failed. Any ideas, anyone?
- (This is one of the very few times I'm nationalistic.) But surely Nicola Cabibbo should be mentioned somewhere in the History section, shouldn't he?
- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comments: mostly copy-and-paste from my opposition at this article's last FAC, slightly updated.
Curious omission: not even a hint of the group theory basis of the quark model? Doesn't need to be much, but if it isn't mentioned at all, this article is not comprehensive.
- Comments: mostly copy-and-paste from my opposition at this article's last FAC, slightly updated.
Curious omission: Yang-Mills theories and, more generally, non-Abelian gauge theories not mentioned at all. Doesn't need to be much, but if it isn't mentioned at all, this article is not comprehensive.
- Major omission: quark gluon plasma is in the lead, but not in the main article (big no-no in itself). This is a central aspect of modern research on quarks.
Description of the parton model: could use some words on what it means that "the proton had substructure".
- Given. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did some tweaking. A sphere would be something else; for definiteness, I took the formulation used in the article that is cited as a reference. Markus Poessel ( talk) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
History section: CP violation should have a one-sentence-explanation or text will not be accessible for your average interested reader
- Mentioned. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"The system of attraction and repulsion between quarks charged with any of the three colors (...) is as follows: a quark charged with one color value will be attracted to an antiquark carrying with the corresponding anticolor, while three quarks all charged with differing colors will similarly be forced together. In any other case, a force of repulsion will come into effect." - that makes it sound more simple than it is. If, say, you have three quarks, each with a different color, and take the symmetric combination, you'll end up with a repulsive force. Also, for a symmetric state with two quarks with two different colors, you get an attractive force.
"Composed of one d and two u quarks, the proton has an overall mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the three quarks contribute around 10 MeV/c2, the remainder is from the energy of the gluons." - 10 MeV/c^2 sounds very low. I remember coming across higher numbers (quark rest mass plus kinetic energy contributions - which one is meant here? quark rest mass only?). Also, at least one of the sources cited (Veltman p. 46) doesn't say anything about this - why is it cited here? Possibly a different page?
- From "Review of Particle Physics:Quarks of 2008 this mass is 12 Mev (3*2+5). Ruslik ( talk) 10:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- But those are the quarks' rest mass contributions only, then. In that case, the sentence, as it stands, is wrong: The quarks contribute not only their rest mass, but also the mass associated with their kinetic energy. If I remember correctly, the latter contribution is significantly larger than the former. Markus Poessel ( talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Gluons are constantly exchanged between quarks through an emission and reception process. These gluon exchange events between quarks are extremely frequent, occurring approximately 1024 times every second." - I'm very skeptical about the number given. After all - and that should be stated here! - the exchange picture is perturbation theory; whatever happens inside a hadron is highly non-perturbative.
- Markus Poessel ( talk) 09:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with most of your points, but I'm afraid it'd be very difficult to mention group theory and Yang-Mills theories in a way that would be comprehensible to the average reader. IMO such details belong to more technical articles such as Quantum chromodynamics, quark model, etc., which are linked by this article, and the reader can follow the links for more information. I'll try to address the other points. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to mention it in a way that the average reader understands completely – but, in the appropriate place, a single sentence that says "In mathematical language, ..., and quarks are in the ... representation of that group." would be something that a) makes the article more comprehensive, b) contains wikilinks to important terms that are intimately connected with the way quarks are described in physics, and should definitely be wikilinked from this lemma, and c) can be made brief enough to show the average reader that there is more, but not something that he or she need understand in detail at this point. Markus Poessel ( talk) 13:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've made a paragraphical mention of qgp. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unfortunately, I think the paragraph is a bit off. QGP is certainly not a theory; if you want to stress the speculative nature, "conjectured new state of matter" or similar would probably be appropriate. Sourcing with a textbook from 2000 is unfortunate; there were major new results from RHIC in 2005. In this lemma, there's probably not enough room to mention specific experiments (if you mention CERN, you must mention RHIC, and outside the time-frame mentioned the LHC), but there should be a mention of cosmological implications – after all, that's one reason this has generated so much interest. Would you mind if I gave it a try? Markus Poessel ( talk) 09:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all; please do. If you could possibly lend your expertise in the other areas that you mentioned were in omission, I'd also be hugely appreciative. I'm no expert, and am frankly overwhelmed by some of your requests. I'd offer that since you were the person to bring some of the matters up, you might know some information on each of the respective omitted topics? If you can't, I completely understand; it'd just make the improvement of the article easier and the overall product better. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- [Continuing from my earlier comments:] An interesting and important article with some sophisticated technical content, apparently aimed at explaining quarks to the naive reader. I would like to see it succeed; but I cannot give it my vote in its present state. Generally, I regard the writing as not up to standard. There is uncertainty of tone and of technical level. Here are some specific points, some of which are connected to observations I make above:
- In the lead, the reader is pampered with such comforts as "in technical terms", "because of a phenomenon known as", "they are found in two of the primary building blocks of matter – protons and neutrons". But there is little point mixing such pabulum with hard-core assertions like this: "This color confinement is propagated by the quarks' engagement in the strong interaction due to their color charge." In fact, it is better to omit the soft stuff and rely on the links to do the work. Evenness of tone; and a consistent level of difficulty.
- I have eliminated the color confinement mention; it wasn't necessary there at any rate. I don't understand what you mean when you say that the reader is "pampered" by some kind of perceived "softness" in sentence construction. Different concepts ad elements of the text require a varying level and complexity of articulation, and there is a difference between this and unevenness of tone. Anyhow, I have fixed and attended to both of the instances you have pointed out; if you could point out further instances of the issue, please do so. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the lead, the reader is pampered with such comforts as "in technical terms", "because of a phenomenon known as", "they are found in two of the primary building blocks of matter – protons and neutrons". But there is little point mixing such pabulum with hard-core assertions like this: "This color confinement is propagated by the quarks' engagement in the strong interaction due to their color charge." In fact, it is better to omit the soft stuff and rely on the links to do the work. Evenness of tone; and a consistent level of difficulty.
Also manifest in the lead, and throughout the article, is uncertainty with the serial comma. And a spaced en dash is used, though all other sentence-punctuating dashes are unspaced em dashes (see WP:DASH). WP:MOS stresses early on the need for consistency of style. Also on punctuation, note 8 needs a space between . and ".Generally the notes seem pretty clean, though – apart from the redlinked names of publishers. Is it policy to include those? I'd prefer to see them unlinked.- "Uncertainty" rectified. If you could point to where the offending space is located, I'd be happy to remove it. Note 8 fixed. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No, not offending space: offending spaced en dashes. Actually, I prefer them, myself. (Read WP:DASH.) But we have to be consistent, so the sentence-punctuating dashes in this article should all be unspaced em dashes. Substitute them, in "...three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which..."Fixed.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 23:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Alas, no. AD, I invited you to read WP:DASH. Forgive me, but it appears that you have not done so. You have now put in unspaced en dashes, where I and WP:DASH and all publishers allow only spaced en dashes (which you had at the outset) in this role, or em dashes (which are in fact required for consistency in this article: unspaced, in fact). WP:DASH (part of WP:MOS) and I repeat our recommendation: now replace your text quarks–up, down and strange–to which with quarks—up, down and strange–to which. Only trying to help. :)Fixed. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Eh. Fixed now. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Classification section: "In this context, flavor is an arbitrarily chosen term referring to different kinds of particles, and has nothing to do with the everyday experience of flavor." Really? And this soon before the dizzying abstruseness of "meaning that their spin quantum number (a property related to their intrinsic angular momentum) is half-integer". Surely such explanations are aimed at different readerships! And more of the same in the rest. Other things: Is the "u with bar" well executed? Surely there is a more suitable character than this, in which the bar looks like a mere artefact on the screen. In "antiquarks have the same mass, lifetime and spin of their respective quarks" there should be a serial comma for consistency (or none elsewhere), and as should replace of. Such matters contribute to an overall looseness in the prose.
- I disagree about the readership notion; spin is explained quite simply, with links to relevant articles. I don't see a problem with this, really, and it was you after all who suggested that we let the links do the work in your first point. The u bar notation is based in a template that houses the scientific notations for all particles, and its use is standard and required in all articles on particle physics. Fixed the of --> as and the missing serial comma. We now have no serials in the article. I think. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Two serial commas that I can see: "...strange (s), top (t), and bottom (b)", and "...three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which...". I don't know why you have just now settled on a no-serial-commas policy. I'm a strong advocate of them, myself. But if you have that policy, apply it to the two cases I have just shown.Fixed.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Removed. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- History section: Are readers supposed to think that several and numerous carry different weight, in "several leptons and numerous hadrons"? If so, how might they tease this out? Again, elegant variation theatens to distract readers. Consider this: "The Gell-Mann–Zweig model predicted three quarks, which they named up, down and strange. At the time, the pair of physicists ascribed various properties and values to the three new proposed particles, such as electric charge and spin." (What, for the naive reader, is the difference between a property and a value, here?) Why not simply this instead: "Gell-Mann and Zweig postulated just three flavors of quarks – up, down, and strange – to which they at first ascribed such properties as spin and electric charge." Why do I propose this? Study it! Two points: Dropping "model" (which turns up soon enough) lets the remainder of the sentence use "they". Similarly, we don't need it repeated that there are "three new proposed particles". Three? Yes, we got that. New? Well, newly discovered – we got that too. Proposed? Of course. Particles? Sure, what else could they be? Later whilst turns up: the ugly "formalising" variant of natural English while, used throughout the rest of the article. Not pleasant. Now this: "Following a decade without empirical evidence supporting the flavor's existence, it was created and observed..." Created? What, the flavor? How so?
- Fixed; I've replaced the old sentence with the one you proposed. I also fixed the problem with leptons and hadrons in the least awkward manner I could think of. I don't understand what you're asking in your final sentence. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In that sentence I was wondering what the text means: "...it was created and observed". I understood observed: a quantum, and therefore the flavor of a quantum, can be observed; a quantum can be "created" in a sense (but it's better to say produced). But quantum does not occur in that sentence! A flavor per se (as a category of quantaquarks that have been theorised about, but not yet observed) is not created – except perhaps for revisionist mystics like Paul Davies, who would have God creating the whole box and dice. I suggest you have this instead: "Following a decade without empirical evidence supporting their existence, charm quantaquarks were finally produced and observed...". See? I genuinely couldn't see what you meant, till I thought again at length.Fixed.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Replaced with a sentence nearly identical in structure to yours ('quanta' was replaced by 'quarks'). — Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- As for "several leptons and numerous hadrons", there are six leptons, and dozens (maybe hundreds) of baryons. And not all of them were known in 1964. So "several leptons and numerous hadrons" was much better than "a multitude of leptons and hadrons". I don't want to go around researching when exactly the muon was reclassified from a meson to a lepton, or when the tau lepton, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino were discovered in order to replace that with the exact number, and anyway that number would be highly irrelevant in that context. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Etymology: More he, less Gell-Mann, I think. "George Zweig, an independent proposer of the theory,...". Yes, we know that by now. Too much repetition and wordiness.
- Both fixed. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Etymology: More he, less Gell-Mann, I think. "George Zweig, an independent proposer of the theory,...". Yes, we know that by now. Too much repetition and wordiness.
- Great; I thank you. Cheers, — Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I am ready to offer more comments once these points have been addressed; and I look forward to being able to support promotion of the article, eventually.No, no more to say.- – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 10:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've read the lead and the first section after that. I agree with Anonymous Dissident that the article strikes an appropriate balance between scientific rigor and accessibility to readers. I may support if I finish reading it later. Crystal whacker ( talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I finished reading the article and support its promotion to featured status.
- One point to consider: In the last section it is written: "The area of physics that studies strong interactions is called the quantum chromodynamics or QCD.[51]" However, QCD is mentioned earlier in the article. Is there a way to introduce QCD earlier or resolve this redundancy, or should it be introduced in two separate parts of the article as it is now? Crystal whacker ( talk) 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I reread every argument made and these needs to be address before I give my support:
A mention of the CKM matrix and quark mixing needs to be there. Preferably a section devoted to it.Took care of it.Why in the world is that table full of colors?
- The colors do mean something symbolically. Every element of the table with one colour is related to every other element of the same colour. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Table has been re-tablified. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The current in 'current quark mass needs to be clarified in some way (wikilink?).
- I think the italics around the phrase make it clear that it's a technical term and there wouldn't be much room for confusion with "quark mass as of now." If you can think of a link, I'd be happy to add it, but I honestly don't think we;'ll have any confusion. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, good enough. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The term hadronize (and variations) could be de-jargonified into "form hadrons" or something similar.
- Will do. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- At first usage, I have explained what the term means and said that the process will be "hereon referred to as hadronization." I think that should be enough. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Should the image about the decay include "rarer" arrows from t to d and b to u?(The labs will take care of this eventually)
- Probably, I just have no way of doing it as I don't have an application to edit images. Hmm. I'll see if I can contact the uploader. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've contacted the graphics labs. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Amry1987 above. There's a place for Cabibbo et al. in the history section (might be a good place to add Wilzcek et al. too).
- Section is now present. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Flavour quantum numbers deserves a section of its own, similar to spin and electric charge. Should the Gell-Man-Nishijima formula be mentionned somewhere? List of baryons has something on it that could prove usefull.
- Done by Markus (I think; may have been someone else). — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel the hadron section could use a short meson section and a short baryon section, with main article links.
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I think we've given good coverage to them and mentioning more of the basics (that's all we'd need because this is an article on quarks) throughout the article, so a dedicated section might not be needed. We already discuss how they're formed in color charge and confinement/gluons. It'd just be redundant. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, good enough. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Some more issues I know I said I was going to support, but I've recently notice potential issues about factual accuracy and completeness of coverage.
- Charm quark says they (charm quarks) were theorized by Glashow, Illious, and Maini in 1970. This article ( quark) says they were theorized by Glashow and Bjorken in 1964. One of the two articles has to be wrong. Which is it?
- Multiple sources of mine indicate that this article is correct. I'll fix charm quark now. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 06:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- The down quark and up quark pages said they were discovered in 1967, not 1968 as quark says (I changed the down quark based on the quark article, so it now says 1968). However the articles used as refs to back the claim of 1968 are from 1969. So which way is it?
- This article is definitely right, my sources are reliable. I'll now fix up and down quark articles. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yuval Ne'eman proposed a SU(3) scheme to classify hadrons in 1961/62, similar to/the same as Gell-Man's SU(2) in 1962. Both event take place before 1964, which is the "birth" of the quark model/eightfold way/aces. What is Ne'eman's role in the quark thing? How is the 1961/62 version of things from Ne'eman and Gell-Man different from the Eightfold way?
- From my understanding, Ne'eman has little to with quarks. He independtly proposed the Eightfold way from Gell-Mann in the same year. The Eightfold way eventually led to the postulation of quarks. I don't really understand what your question is; you seem to be implying that there is something historically wrong with the eightfold way being proposed before quarks, but the eightfold way concerns octets of mesons and baryons, so I don't see where the problem is. In regard to your last question: from what I know, the two proposed a notion that was almost identical. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think I've confused the color SU(3) with the approximate flavour SU(3). Seems consistent with the content of the "color" section. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done, except for triplet and degree of freedom for which I'm not very sure about the best link target. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for now, in light of the comments I made above.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: No other reviewers seem prepared to !vote on this. Writing as an "outsider" (I am a microbiologist and perhaps therefore an average reader); I find this article fascinating, engaging and very well-written. It has taught me very much. It seems to me that the discussions above pertain to criterion 4, mainly wrt summary style, and this is so difficult to get right. This is a damn good article. Period. I would be pleased to see this on the Main Page. There is room for improvement in all articles, including those that are featured. No doubt, such improvements will be made to this one—but I see no reasons, based on the Featured Article Criteria, to withhold the bronze star. Graham Colm Talk 22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support I supported this article two months ago, and I should admit that it has become much better since then. I copy-edited it slightly. There is, of course, a room for improvement, but think the article is very close to FA level. Ruslik ( talk) 10:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.Neutral. [Changed because some specific concerns have been addressed. Only neutral, I'm afraid, because I do not think the article quite meets the high standard of writing demanded in a featured article, and therefore does not succeed in delivering its content as efficiently as it might. I will not, however, oppose its promotion on that ground. I'll have no more to say here.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)]
Support All my concerns have been addressed, so "support".
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics} 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose until the referencing issues are addressed, and until the Gell-Man and Ne'eman thing in 1961 is clarified. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the third time in this review that I've come across a reference that doesn't contain the information it's meant to provide, which I think is very, very worrying. I'm going to make spot-checks on some of the other references, but for now I'm going back to Oppose - this indicates serious problems with the way references have been added to this lemma. Markus Poessel ( talk) 14:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Image review: I'm commenting on the licensing of the images only. I am unable to comment on the accuracy of the self-made images.
- I have a question about File:Charmed-dia-w.png. I am confused because it is marked as PD US Gov, and I read the permissions exchange linked in the Source. It acknowledges the image is PD, but asks for no proprietary use for the image. I am unclear why someone would ask such a thing of a public domain image. I have asked for further clarification on that image in particular.
- All other images appear to be fine. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- "These partons were later identified as up and down quarks when the other flavors were beginning to surface.[23]" where the reference is L.M. Lederman, D. Teresi (2006). The God Particle. Mariner Books. p. 208.
ISBN
0618711686. The book is online at Google Books, and there is nothing on p. 208 to support this particular sentence, as far as I can see.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 12:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is weird. I'm going to remove this reference; I'm not sure who added it - it may well have been me - but, you're right, it isn't pertinent. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Various theories have been offered to explain this very large mass. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question.[28]" where 28 is
this press release. As far as I can see, the press release says nothing about the LHC, and about explaining the interaction of Higgs and top quark. It's all about the upper limit on the Higgs mass from measurements of the top quark mass.
- You haven't read it, then. Please see "Physics: The mass of the top quark (pp638-642; N&V)", the second section. It does mention the LHC, and how the Higgs boson may be related to the top quark mass. —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've most certainly read that section. Where does it say anything about answering the question of why the top quark mass is so large? As I wrote above: It's all about the upper limit on the higgs mass from measurements of the top quark mass, as far as I can see.
Here is a nice little summary on how top quark mass and higgs mass are related.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- "For example, the mass of the top quark is related to the mass of the long-hypothesized but still undetected Higgs boson. Properties of the (equally hypothetical) field associated with this particle would help explain why matter is, not to put too fine a point on it, 'massive.' In principle, the top quark is point-like and should have no mass; yet, through its interactions with the Higgs field, the physical mass of the top quark appears to be about that of a gold nucleus." - that is a valid and appropriate reference to "Various theories have been offered to explain this very large mass. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question.[28]" —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 00:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. What you quote simply describes the Higgs mechanism, which is how all quarks get their mass. It does not tell us anything about why the top quark mass is so much heavier than expected – it does not "answer the question" of why the mass has the value it does have, as the statement claims. Also, what is the "study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field" the statement is talking about? Is it anything other than measuring the top quark's mass more precisely than before? If yes, then the article basically says that measuring the top quark's mass more precisely might help answer the question of why the top quark's mass is so large. How is that supposed to work?
Markus Poessel (
talk) 14:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Who said the ref has to provide an answer? All that needs to be referenced is that elementary particles are affected by the Higgs mechanism, and, as you yourself stated, it does. This was the statement, and the source backs up and parallels the statement. That's what a reference is. —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 15:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- The reference is meant to provide support for the assertion that "Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question." - the question being, as stated earlier, why the top quark is so heavy. The reference given does not say anything about physicists hoping to answer, by detecting the Higgs boson and studying the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field, the question of why the top quark is so heavy. That's not what a reference is supposed to be.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- The reference says ".In principle, the top quark is point-like and should have no mass; yet, through its interactions with the Higgs field, the physical mass of the top quark appears to be about that of a gold nucleus." then followed by "Further improvements in precision are to be expected from the Tevatron at Fermilab, and from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (the European nuclear research laboratory at Geneva) when it becomes operational after 2007." I don't know what more you could ask for as a ref for the statement that the interaction of the top quark with the higgs fields is the proposed reason why the top quark is so heavy, and that physicist are looking forward to the LHC experiments to probe the interaction of the top and the higgs so they can understand it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The reference is meant to provide support for the assertion that "Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question." - the question being, as stated earlier, why the top quark is so heavy. The reference given does not say anything about physicists hoping to answer, by detecting the Higgs boson and studying the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field, the question of why the top quark is so heavy. That's not what a reference is supposed to be.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Who said the ref has to provide an answer? All that needs to be referenced is that elementary particles are affected by the Higgs mechanism, and, as you yourself stated, it does. This was the statement, and the source backs up and parallels the statement. That's what a reference is. —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 15:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. What you quote simply describes the Higgs mechanism, which is how all quarks get their mass. It does not tell us anything about why the top quark mass is so much heavier than expected – it does not "answer the question" of why the mass has the value it does have, as the statement claims. Also, what is the "study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field" the statement is talking about? Is it anything other than measuring the top quark's mass more precisely than before? If yes, then the article basically says that measuring the top quark's mass more precisely might help answer the question of why the top quark's mass is so large. How is that supposed to work?
Markus Poessel (
talk) 14:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- "For example, the mass of the top quark is related to the mass of the long-hypothesized but still undetected Higgs boson. Properties of the (equally hypothetical) field associated with this particle would help explain why matter is, not to put too fine a point on it, 'massive.' In principle, the top quark is point-like and should have no mass; yet, through its interactions with the Higgs field, the physical mass of the top quark appears to be about that of a gold nucleus." - that is a valid and appropriate reference to "Various theories have been offered to explain this very large mass. The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that, in the next years, the detection of the Higgs boson in particle accelerators—such as the Large Hadron Collider—and the study of the top quark's interaction with the Higgs field might help answer the question.[28]" —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 00:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've most certainly read that section. Where does it say anything about answering the question of why the top quark mass is so large? As I wrote above: It's all about the upper limit on the higgs mass from measurements of the top quark mass, as far as I can see.
Here is a nice little summary on how top quark mass and higgs mass are related.
Markus Poessel (
talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- You haven't read it, then. Please see "Physics: The mass of the top quark (pp638-642; N&V)", the second section. It does mention the LHC, and how the Higgs boson may be related to the top quark mass. —
Anonymous Dissident
Talk 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
More on references.
- The current ref. 1 is "Fundamental Particles". Oxford Physics.
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/documents/pUS/dIS/fundam.htm. Retrieved on 2008-06-29. "Oxford Physics" is a bit grand - if you look at the author information, it was written by an undergraduate and a sixth-form student. Yes, it was written for the public webpages of the Oxford Physics Department, and they probably looked some or all of it over, but it's still an inappropriate source. If this statement needs a reference at all, it should be one of the text-books used elsewhere in the article.
- Removed. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 07:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref. 4 is to HyperPhysics - why, when there is the online Review of Particle Properties, which has the same information, much more authoritative?
- It's a simple ref right at the beginning that goes straight to the point. Quarks are fundamental fermions that compose baryons (groups of 3), such as protons and neutrons, and mesons (groups of q-antiq), and talks about confinment. And it covers their names. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref. 8 apparently gives the same information as ref 4. (six flavors). Better to have both point to the same reference, and the natural choice is the Review of Particle Properties.
- Used the hyperphysics refs. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref. 3 is meant to support the statements 1) top and bottom sometimes known as truth and beauty, and 2) Color confinement; all we know from quarks is from studying hadrons. The page reference is to page 169, which does mention in passing truth/topness and beauty/bottomness, but nothing about color confinement or the necessary of inferring quark properties from hadrons.
- Fixed. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 5. is an article from an institutional newsletter/journal ("Beamline"). The article itself is about the top quark discovery. Seeing how much literature is out there on the history of physics, this is not a very suitable reference for the quark model being proposed by Gell-Mann and Zweig in 1964.
- It's suitable enough to establish that Gell-Man and Zweig proposed it. Nevertheless I've placed the original articles from Gell-Man and Zweig next to it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- A page or section number would be helpful for the current ref 10, J. Barrow (1997) [1994]. "The Singularity and Other Problems". The Origin of the Universe (Reprint ed.). Basic Books.
ISBN
978-0465053148 - it's not very helpful if readers have to search the whole book to find the information they're after.
- —This is part of a comment by Markus Poessel (of 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
- "The Singularity and Other Problems" is a (relatively short) chapter, the book being The Origin of the Universe. I only have the Italian translation of the book. The TOC of the book is available online for preview on (IIRC) Amazon and it is where I took the English title of the chapter (which, incidentally, had been translated verbatim in Italian), but that chapter wasn't on preview, so I couldn't add page numbers. (If someone has either the original language edition of that book or another source which says the same thing, please add page numbers and/or the other source.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref. 12, P. Rowlands (2008). Zero to Infinity. World Scientific. p. 406. ISBN 9812709142: Reference for statement that antiparticles have the same mass, life-time, spin. That particular page is part of the limited preview on Google Books, and has no statements about antiparticles whatsoever, as far as I can see.
- Switched it to Introductionary Nuclear Physics by Samuel Wong. There's a paragraph directly on that. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Current ref. 17: A. Pickering (1984). Constructing Quarks. University of Chicago Press. p. 84. ISBN 0226667995. Reference is to p. 84, but should probably better be to section 4.4, where the question is discussed of the reality is discussed in more detail
- Current ref. 18: B.J. Bjorken, S.L. Glashow (1964). "Elementary Particles and SU(4)". Physics Letters 11 (3): 255. doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)90433-0 is the reference for a fourth flavour of quark being proposed. I might have overlooked it, but I don't find the word "quark" in the article. My impression is that Bjorken and Glashow at that time did not think the constituent quarks were all that relevant. It's all about the symmetry groups, not about partons.
- The publication predicted what became known as the charm quark, even thought it might not have been proposed as a quark. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 23, here, is just a text-only timeline, no indication of any publication, apparently part of lecture notes by an astronomer. Surely, there must be a reliable alternative source. Also, I see no indication that the text on that page supports the statement for which it is listed as a reference: "These partons were later identified as up and down quarks when the other flavors were beginning to surface. Their discovery also validated the existence of the strange quark, because it was necessary to the model Gell-Mann and Zweig had proposed." It doesn't use the word parton, it just lists the Stanford experiment without pointing to later identification of the particles observed, and it certainly doesn't say anything about the strange quark being indirectly validated.
- The 1968 section matches with "There partons were later identified as as up and down quarks" and the "without mentioning the name quark" means they were using the name "parton". If you really want to be picky about it, I suppose it is a bit of a strech, but the five refs of this paragraphs do cover all the paragraph, even if they aren't rigoursly aligned statement by statement. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref. 26, M. Kobayashi, T. Maskawa (1973). "CP-Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction". Progress of Theoretical Physics 49 (2): 652–657. doi:10.1143/PTP.49.652. http://ptp.ipap.jp/link?PTP/49/652/pdf, doesn't appear to say anything about naming the two additional quarks top and bottom.
- Moved ref to relevant part, and placed a citation needed tag for the names.
- "The building blocks of the atomic nucleus—the proton and the neutron—are baryons" - I agree it's a small step from "proton and neutron are made of three quarks", which is what the reference says, to "... are baryons", but still: if there's a reference for such a straightforward sentence at all, why not one that actually talks about baryons (this reference doesn't mention the word)?
- I've added the Hyperphysics ref so the word baryon is explicit. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current reference 33, E.V. Shuryak (2004). The QCD Vacuum, Hadrons and Superdense Matter. World Scientific. pp. 59. ISBN 9812385746, does mention pentaquarks, but not tetraquarks, as far as I can see.
- I've added the 2008 PDG review on tetraquarks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Current reference 34 (Povh et al.) should have a page or a section number. Otherwise it's not very helpful.
- Ref. 37 (Demtröder): The limited review available on Google books has p. 39-40 all about the mass of the electron, not about atomic nuclei, protons and neutrons.
- Current ref 38: F. Close (2006). The New Cosmic Onion. CRC Press. p. 82. ISBN 1584887982. Cited in support of the spin of quarks, and the fact they are fermions. Page cited is about quark spins combining to form hadron spins. Quark spin itself is one page earlier; I don't see anything about fermions.
- "Half-integer spin" and "fermions" are synonyms. I've changed the page to 81 though. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Current ref. 40, "Quarks". Antonine Education. http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Physics_AS/Module_1/Topic_5/quarks.htm. Retrieved on 2008-07-10 - how is this a reliable source? What is worse, it's given as a reference to how quark spins combine to give hadron spins. I found no such information on the page. In fact, I didn't find a single mention of "spin".
- Wow that is a horrible ref. I've removed it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 52, M. Veltman (2003). Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics. World Scientific. p. 46. ISBN 981238149X. - again going by the preview available on Google Books: On the page cited, nothing I can see about the different contribution to hadron mass, which accounts for two of three uses of this reference. The third use is close, although on Google, the color changes are on p. 47.
- I've fixed the Velman refs, the pages now fit the statements. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Current ref. 62 , Papenfuss/Luest/Schleich, is a collection of contributions by many authors. Quoting it in support of a very specific statement without giving a page or section number is rather pointless.
- "Therefore, although the color of each quark is always changing, a bound hadron will constantly retain a set of colors that will preserve the force of attraction, therefore forever disallowing quarks to exist in isolation" - current ref. 67, S. Webb (2004). Out of this World. Springer. p. 91. ISBN 0387029303. As far as I can see, nothing about confinement or about the statement about bound hadrons retaining a set of colors on that particular page.
- Ref. 69, J.T.V. Tran (1996). '96 Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories. Atlantica Séguier Frontières. p. 60. ISBN 2863322052. is not cited properly. This is a contribution by Michael Doser, titled "Status of Glueballs", in the proceedings. Tran isn't the author of the contribution, he/she's the editor of the proceedings.
- Fixed. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ref. 72: National Research Council (U.S.). Elementary-Particle Physics Panel (1986). Elementary-particle Physics. National Academies Press. p. 62. ISBN 0309035767. Reference doesn't say anything about colloquial usage. Also, "the sea" is not a quote from there (although "a neutral sea of gluons" and "a sea of low-energy virtual quark-antiquark pairs" does occur on that page).
- "A neutral sea of gluons" and the like is good enough I say. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ref. 73 (Perkins) doesn't say anything about CERN experiments. Any reference for the quark stars etc. in the second part of the paragraph?
Some other statements I came across while checking on references:
- "Gell-Mann and Zweig postulated just three flavors of quarks—up, down and strange—to which they at first ascribed such properties as spin and electric charge." - why only "at first"? Surely quarks still have these properties?
- I think it's because later physicists added more properties such as weak isospin, etc... Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Section "Weak interaction": The second paragraph doesn't make clear the connection to the first paragraph. We're talking about W bosons in both cases, after all.
Markus Poessel ( talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Query: I've never understood why this article can't begin with a clear definition of a quark, such as
here or
here. Two subsequent sentences in the lead start with "because", and this article still lacks a clear and cohesive lead. Quarks are not rocket science: an older person who studied physics before quarks were observed should be able to read the lead and understand what changed when they were discovered and why it mattered. The lead isn't doing it; perhaps the authors don't remember how exciting the discoveries in the mid-90s were, or understand the context that should be established in the lead for older readers.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 04:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Headbomb and I have tried to address this. I think that the third sentence is way too soon to mention such technical terms as "color confinement", considering that most people reading the lead word-by-word are likely to have never heard of quarks before. (People who already know what a quark is are likely to just skim the lead through and go to the TOC.) Now, such people would know almost exactly what the heck we're talking about by the end of the third sentence, provided they know what "subatomic particle", "matter", "proton", "neutron", and "atomic nucleus" mean. I think that the second sentence ("In technical terms, quarks ...") could be moved below, too, but I'm not sure about where to place it. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, leaning Support Sandy beat me to it, dammit. I've been meaning to return to this article for three or four days. My main reservations two days ago (left unposted) were first that I didn't walk away from the lede knowing what a quark really was in relation to other subatomic particles and second that I wanted to see closure on all the objections by Markus to the refs. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 20:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The fractional electric charge is one of the most peculiar features of quarks, do you people think it might be mentioned in the lead somehow? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've mentionned it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment from nominator - I have been meaning to set to work on some of the concerns mentioned, but I have been extremely busy, and unable to even edit let alone attend to the FAC. I hope to be back in a few days; until then, I hope you all understand and can bear with me. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 12:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment—The mathematical notation and wording in the "Cabibbo angle and CKM matrix" section seems much too technical for the large majority of readers. I'm not clear what value this provides to an overview article. This by itself is sufficient to prevent me from supporting the article, without re-reading the remainder. Please see Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.— RJH ( talk) 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is practically unanimous consensus that the CKM matrix should be mentioned, but I didn't do that in the first place, because I tried to find a way to state what it is without using terms which only readers fluent in linear algebra and its application to QM can understand, such as "eigenstate", and without lying, but I failed. Is there a channeler around here who can ask Dick how he would explain that? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think even Feynman could explain the CKM matrix in less than three or four paragraphs. I mean you can simply say something like "The CKM matrix is a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks" (and it is said), but then you'd still haven't covered a thing about the CKM matrix and its importance. I would find it rather frustrating that this article fails its FAC because it is complete in coverage. There is no FAC criteria saying that articles should be dumbed down to the point that it becomes pablum.
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics} 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well sorry we have to disagree on this, but my answer is no.
Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible is a MoS criteria. I also think the notation fails
WP:Explain jargon. Removing (or explaining) mathematics that only makes sense to a university upperclassman in physics is hardly dumbing it down. Your argument is hyperbole, and my objection remains unresolved. If you are going to include mathematics of that nature in the article, then you must make an effort to render it comprehensible to the majority of readers. "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it." ;-) —
RJH (
talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (Yes, that guy managed to explain how the principle of stationary action is a consequence of interference between wave functions in a way that even my mother would likely understand, so maybe he did understand it to some extent.) Well, we might start drawing a pair of Cartesian axes, labeled |d> and |s>, and another pair rotated by 13°, labeled |d'> and |s'>, showing that |d'> equals 0.974 times |d> plus 0.226 times |s>... Maybe I'm getting somewhere. But I don't know how far
WP:NOR allows me to go with an intuitive explanation like that. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- In google books I seem to be able to find a number of works that explain the Cabibbo angle in a clearer manner. For example, just by writing the equation this way: , the math already seemed clearer, at least to me.—
RJH (
talk) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't see how that clarifies anything. or is exactly the same thing, with the later having the advanage of being the conventional way of writing things. As for google books, got links?. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- In google books I seem to be able to find a number of works that explain the Cabibbo angle in a clearer manner. For example, just by writing the equation this way: , the math already seemed clearer, at least to me.—
RJH (
talk) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (Yes, that guy managed to explain how the principle of stationary action is a consequence of interference between wave functions in a way that even my mother would likely understand, so maybe he did understand it to some extent.) Well, we might start drawing a pair of Cartesian axes, labeled |d> and |s>, and another pair rotated by 13°, labeled |d'> and |s'>, showing that |d'> equals 0.974 times |d> plus 0.226 times |s>... Maybe I'm getting somewhere. But I don't know how far
WP:NOR allows me to go with an intuitive explanation like that. --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well sorry we have to disagree on this, but my answer is no.
Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible is a MoS criteria. I also think the notation fails
WP:Explain jargon. Removing (or explaining) mathematics that only makes sense to a university upperclassman in physics is hardly dumbing it down. Your argument is hyperbole, and my objection remains unresolved. If you are going to include mathematics of that nature in the article, then you must make an effort to render it comprehensible to the majority of readers. "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it." ;-) —
RJH (
talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think even Feynman could explain the CKM matrix in less than three or four paragraphs. I mean you can simply say something like "The CKM matrix is a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks" (and it is said), but then you'd still haven't covered a thing about the CKM matrix and its importance. I would find it rather frustrating that this article fails its FAC because it is complete in coverage. There is no FAC criteria saying that articles should be dumbed down to the point that it becomes pablum.
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics} 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose—I was ready to support, but started to find too great a density of issues in the prose to do so. It requires another copy-edit by someone fresh to the text.
- "Quarks (and antiquarks) are the only known particles whose electric charge is a fractional multiple of the elementary charge, although this can never be directly observed, as hadrons all have integer charge." The "as" causality has lost me, and it's still the lead. Can you be a little kinder to non-experts just here? Why does hadron integer charge preclude the observation of the elementary charge of a quark? (In addition, consider removing "all"; does "this" refer to "elementary charge" or "fractional multiple of the elementary charge"?
- Remove "the" from the last sentence in the lead.
- This is clunky: "plus the unobserved (as of 2008) Higgs boson"; why not "plus the Higgs boson (unobserved as of 2008)"?
- The flavour names are italicised in the first section, but roman in the lead. And are you going to use the symbols introduced in the lead?
- You italicize words when you introduce them for the first time (that's what the <dfn> tag does in HTML), no point to always italicize them. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- As for using the symbols, there is little point in using them in prose, but in places such as uud and in the indices of matrix entries they're useful. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- "All quarks of the same flavor are identical particles, meaning that all of their properties are the same." "Identical particles" links to a definition that does not specifically mention properties. Here, properties are elevated to the definitional. Why not "All quarks of the same flavor are identical particles with the same properties." Perhaps I'm not getting something here.
- "they are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, stating that no two fermions of the same flavor can ever simultaneously occupy the same state."—"..., which states that ...". What about three fermions? Why not remove "two"? Do you need "ever" as an amplifier?
- Fragmented sentence structure: "This contrasts with particles that mediate forces: such particles are bosons, meaning that they have integer spin; the Pauli exclusion principle does not apply to them." Again, the ", meaning that ..." formula is used, possibly misleading us.
- Given that "integer spin" is sometimes used as a definition of "boson", it's not misleading. But sometimes "symmetrical wave function" is used as a definition, so it isn't misleading even if the reader interprets "meaning" as "implying". Given that the two definitions are equivalent, there's no point in discussing which one is the right one. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- " This interaction is the reason why quarks attract each other to form hadrons". Do we need both "reason" and "why"?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22reason+why%22 gives over 33 million hits. It's a quite common idiom in English. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)(Fixed by Headbomb. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC))- Ah, yes. Because the majority of the population writes poorly, so should we. As a writing teacher, I am saddened by that argument.
Awadewit (
talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can see nothing poorer in "the reason why" than in "the person who", or "the place where". --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- They introduce redundancies and can be eliminated in favor of stronger, crisper writing. "This interaction is the reason
whyquarks attract each other to form hadrons" or "This interaction isthe reasonwhy quarks attract each other to form hadrons". ("France isthe placewhere he went." "The person who won the election was Obama" -> "Obama won the election", etc.). Budding Journalist 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- They introduce redundancies and can be eliminated in favor of stronger, crisper writing. "This interaction is the reason
- I can see nothing poorer in "the reason why" than in "the person who", or "the place where". --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. Because the majority of the population writes poorly, so should we. As a writing teacher, I am saddened by that argument.
Awadewit (
talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- "In the same way that the electric force is responsible for atoms attracting each other to form molecules, the strong interaction is responsible for protons and neutrons attracting each other to form atomic nuclei." The old noun + ing urchin, twice. "for the atomic attraction that brings atoms together to form molecules"? etc.
- "Elementary fermions are grouped into three generations, each one comprising two leptons and two quarks." Spot the redundant word. Tony (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
All that jazz about words and stuff is nice, but could we get to the real problems of this articles. Aka, the two citation needed tags, clarifying the contradiction between Gell-Man and Ne'eman in 1964 vs. Gell-Man and Zweig in 1964, writing in non-klingon, and addressing the ref issues? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I too am very keen on seeing Markus' concerns about the refs fully addressed. You know, Wikipedia is an imperfect process, and even at the FA level we field articles that probably could still be improved in some manner or other. And that's OK. But in general, in academic writing, the refs are sacrosanct, at least IMO. If they don't match the content, or if the content is not fully reflected in the refs, then the article cannot be FA. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Notice of withdrawal - I'm sorry to do this, but it's the right thing to do. I will be extremely busy until February because of personal commitments related to my schooling situation. I will literally be unable to edit any day until January 29. I therefore think it only right that I withdraw from this nomination, but it is certainly my intent to fix the problems and concerns brought up here as soon as I am able. I hope everyone understands. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment HB said: "I don't think even Feynman could explain the CKM matrix in less than three or four paragraphs. I mean you can simply say something like 'The CKM matrix is a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks' (and it is said), but then you'd still haven't covered a thing about the CKM matrix and its importance."
- Hey. People. I greatly fear my voice will be pooh-poohed here. In fact. I would bet on it. But it shouldn't. To paraphrase Feynman (if I followed the logic of the threads correctly): "I think I can safely say that this article doesn't need CKM in it." If it takes three or four paragraphs, then it needs its own article. End of story. Please see Wikipedia:Summary style, esp. the part that says: "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail." IF CKM isn't an example of a section where readers would want varying amounts of detail, then I don't know what is... So I repeat: This article does not need it or want it and should not have it. End of story. You can put in a few sentences about the importance of CKM and give its definition an oversimplified miss. It is safe and fair to give it a miss, since it needs its own article. Crap, you can even redlink CKM (I haven't looked to see if the article exists yet) and I would Support. Some person might Oppose based on 1b (Comprehensive), but that would be.. what's the word for "following rules in a single-minded manner, to the detriment of any meaningful measure of reality"? So. try to find a few sentences about the importance of CKM. Put in a definition like the one above about "a way to keep track of how often the quarks decays into other quarks" and state explicitly that this is an oversimplification. Fix the references of this article (absolutely required) then PASS it FA then work on the CKM article. I hope I can make you see the light with respect to the fact that any topic which requires so much explication does not belong in this article. It belongs in its own article. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 01:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you noticed what is between the section header and the sentence "In 1963, Nicola Cabibbo ..."? --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Or for what matters what comes after? It was very jargon-y before, but things have been reworded to be more accessible to everyone. If you have a way to improve the section, go ahead I'm all ears, but it's completely unacceptable not to have a section on the CKM matrix, its signicance, its accounting of CP violation, and its prediction of the third generation of quarks. Not having it would be like not speaking of speciation on in the evolution article. By comparison, this section is IMO far more accessible to the layfolk than the Enzymatic function section in the Exosome complex article, riddle with unexplained jargon such as "These are all 3'-5' exoribonuclease domains, meaning the enzymes degrade RNA molecules from their 3' end." yet that one got featured too. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you noticed what is between the section header and the sentence "In 1963, Nicola Cabibbo ..."? --
Army1987 –
Deeds, not
words. 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ "American FactFinder". United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
-
^
"Spokane, WA MSA". Metro Area Membership Report. The Association of Religion Data Archives. 2000. Retrieved 2009-1-02.
{{ cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=( help)