The article was not promoted by Graham Colm ( talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 [1].
GeigerâMarsden experiment ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
This article is about the Geiger-Marsden experiment, a landmark experiment by which Ernest Rutherford discovered the existence of the atomic nucleus. I have thoroughly rewritten the article to a better standard and would like to see it considered for FA status. Kurzon ( talk) 08:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Hi, thanks for working on this. As Headbomb wrote, a big part of the achievement of Rutherfords and others was the quantitative analysis, giving the differential scattering cross section in relation to the angle, this must be included in the article in some way. The lead should also be expanded to properly summarize the article. I find it one of the biggest lifts in writing a good article, but it's the most important part of it. Best regards Hekerui ( talk) 09:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Just to make this less painful for everyone involved, I don't think this article has a chance of improving to FA-level within a reasonable amount of time (e.g. weeks). There simply are too many issues with it, touching almost every aspect of WP:FACR 1a) to 1e). The article is better than at the start of the FAC, and is still being improved, but with several major areas of content simply missing from the article (1b and 1c), and referencing being mostly based on web resources aimed at intro-level (and the references they provide) it's nearly impossible to work on addressing issues relating to 1a and 1e. The article simply need to spend more time in the oven, with all content present and solidly referenced through and through, drawing heavily on historical review articles, books, and things like Rutherford's Nobel Lecture. If I were Kurzon, I'd withdraw the nomination for now, without any prejudice against a later nomination. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Question Are we in American or British English here? If it's the former, why is that? -- John ( talk) 19:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing note - This nomination is premature. The article is not ready for consideration for promotion to FA. See Headbomb's comments above. Graham Colm ( talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Graham Colm ( talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 [1].
GeigerâMarsden experiment ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
This article is about the Geiger-Marsden experiment, a landmark experiment by which Ernest Rutherford discovered the existence of the atomic nucleus. I have thoroughly rewritten the article to a better standard and would like to see it considered for FA status. Kurzon ( talk) 08:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Hi, thanks for working on this. As Headbomb wrote, a big part of the achievement of Rutherfords and others was the quantitative analysis, giving the differential scattering cross section in relation to the angle, this must be included in the article in some way. The lead should also be expanded to properly summarize the article. I find it one of the biggest lifts in writing a good article, but it's the most important part of it. Best regards Hekerui ( talk) 09:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Just to make this less painful for everyone involved, I don't think this article has a chance of improving to FA-level within a reasonable amount of time (e.g. weeks). There simply are too many issues with it, touching almost every aspect of WP:FACR 1a) to 1e). The article is better than at the start of the FAC, and is still being improved, but with several major areas of content simply missing from the article (1b and 1c), and referencing being mostly based on web resources aimed at intro-level (and the references they provide) it's nearly impossible to work on addressing issues relating to 1a and 1e. The article simply need to spend more time in the oven, with all content present and solidly referenced through and through, drawing heavily on historical review articles, books, and things like Rutherford's Nobel Lecture. If I were Kurzon, I'd withdraw the nomination for now, without any prejudice against a later nomination. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Question Are we in American or British English here? If it's the former, why is that? -- John ( talk) 19:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Closing note - This nomination is premature. The article is not ready for consideration for promotion to FA. See Headbomb's comments above. Graham Colm ( talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply