Hi, I'd value your input on how to bring this article to FA status. It's already had some scientific peer review. Thanks! Willow 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- My initial impression is that this article is too technical for anybody who has not completed at least a year of calculus and some college-level physics. (Actually a lot of this looks like third or fourth-year physics.) Even the introduction is fairly dense. The illustration is not that helpful, particularly since the curl symbol (×) looks too much like an 'x'. Some comments:
- I'd suggest moving the history section up to just after the introduction.
- In the basic properties section you need to define "E" where it is first used and also explain how it entered the equation(s).
- Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- The introduction doesn't need this amount of machinery; why not say "in the plane of motion" instead of "perpendicular to the angular momentum vector"? I'll be back. Septentrionalis 00:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'd value your input on how to bring this article to FA status. It's already had some scientific peer review. Thanks! Willow 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- My initial impression is that this article is too technical for anybody who has not completed at least a year of calculus and some college-level physics. (Actually a lot of this looks like third or fourth-year physics.) Even the introduction is fairly dense. The illustration is not that helpful, particularly since the curl symbol (×) looks too much like an 'x'. Some comments:
- I'd suggest moving the history section up to just after the introduction.
- In the basic properties section you need to define "E" where it is first used and also explain how it entered the equation(s).
- Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- The introduction doesn't need this amount of machinery; why not say "in the plane of motion" instead of "perpendicular to the angular momentum vector"? I'll be back. Septentrionalis 00:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)