Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geiger–Marsden experiment/archive1

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 Graham Colm (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 [1].

Geiger–Marsden experiment[edit]

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

As of the current version, I have to say this isn't at the level I expect an FA-article to be. The main points of contention are mostly:

First there is a complete lack of any sort of mathematical details, or quantitative experimental details. The qualitative aspects are mostly fine (Thomson = everything goes through, minor deflection, Rutherford = most goes through, but some have very very large deflections), but cross sections formulas and data plots for Rutherford vs Thomson vs Experiment are missing. Sources are old enough that they ought to be public domain by now, if not fair use can be claimed.
The GM experiment was the start of all of nuclear physics. This only has a very small mention, barely an afterthought. This needs to be greatly expanded upon, at least until the discovery of the neutron / discovery of nuclear structure. Possibly up to at least to the SLAC deep scattering experiments which found that protons and neutrons themselves have substructure, but that might be overkill.

There are other more minor things, but these two are complete dealbreakers for me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor things:

[2] mentions some prior results. In particular, there's E. Rutherford (1906), Phil Mag 12 143 seems to warrant mention. Maybe the "discussions" of the 1906 results by Kucera & Masek, Bragg, Meitner, Meyer are relevant too, but maybe not. Those papers should at least be read to confirm.

I'll add more things later. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, if I was an actual physicist, these demands would be easy to meet.Kurzon (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA means amongst other things that, and i quote, an article is 1 a) well-written, b) comprehensive, c) well-researched, d) neutral, e) stable. It highlights wikipedia's best articles, regardless of how difficult it is to write them. My objections isn't to say your recent work since ~April has been bad, unappreciated, or didn't improve the article. It simply means that I don't think the article, as currently written, can stand next to the likes of photon, quark, or equipartition theorem. Maybe others will disagree, maybe they won't, but the point here is that FA reviews are meaningless they were free passes just because you worked hard. I worked hard on many articles, and they aren't featured. That's fine. And I worked very, very, hard on a few articles and they got featured.

It it was easy, everyone would do it. Remember that people are willing to help, but this is a volunteer project and people have their own lives to live. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get the point. Good thing I have the weekend ahead of me to brush up on my trigonometry.Kurzon (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take the comments as a personal attack. The criteria are quite lofty, it's no shame to not get to them, all that matters is that the article gets improved, and this process will help in that regard. Hekerui (talk) 09:47, 31 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]

Ok, User:Hekerui, what do you think of it now?Kurzon (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it in great details, but the experiment results figures (which can be lifted from the original articles themselves) are still missing from the article. Likewise, the math of Thomson scattering isn't present. Referencing is weak, and whole sections are in need of wikification. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found two web pages that detail the maths behind Thomson's prediction: this one, and this one. Each does the maths a little differently. Which do you think I ought to copy? Kurzon (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two, Hyperphysics is the best. The first one gives only back of the envelope estimate of the deflection angle, Hyperphysics is more explicit in its assumptions. Also, [3] will come in handy for the nuclear physics/deep inelastic scattering section. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Headbomb, how about now?Kurzon (talk) 21:14, 12 August 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]

This article wasn't getting any attention until I nominated it. I submitted it to peer review as I was supposed to but nobody took notice. Nobody ever takes notice of peer review requests.

If I can't get FA, can somebody at least upgrade this articles quality scale score? Right now it's just a C-class. Somebody, give a me a cookie.Kurzon (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

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]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.