Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quark/archive2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Quark: workpage
Line 210: Line 210:
:::::Thanks for taking a stab, but quarks aren't [[substance]]s. I'll try and think of something else. &mdash;<strong>[[User:Anonymous Dissident|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Anonymous Dissident</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 08:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for taking a stab, but quarks aren't [[substance]]s. I'll try and think of something else. &mdash;<strong>[[User:Anonymous Dissident|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Anonymous Dissident</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 08:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Hi again, I really don't mean to leave you hanging, but my Spousal Unit has many items on her Honey Do list today. I have copied the lead (temporarily) to [[User:Ling.Nut/page2]] and will try to get to it this evening, which is probably late morning for those of you in the States. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;[[User:Ling.Nut/3IAR|WP:3IAR]])</sup> 09:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Hi again, I really don't mean to leave you hanging, but my Spousal Unit has many items on her Honey Do list today. I have copied the lead (temporarily) to [[User:Ling.Nut/page2]] and will try to get to it this evening, which is probably late morning for those of you in the States. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;[[User:Ling.Nut/3IAR|WP:3IAR]])</sup> 09:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' My head exploded trying to comb through the article for problems so, can you at least integrate the "see also" section into the body of the text? Thanks. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:19, 3 October 2008

Quark

Nominator(s): —Anonymous DissidentTalk
previous FAC
Toolbox

Over the past week or so, I have completely re-written this article. Before, it didn't make too much coherent sense and was quite covered in redundancy. I believe the article now meets the criterion. I think the text is comprehensive and provides an all-round view of the topic. The article is sourced to forty-three (43) reliable references, consisting of a healthy meld of web and book sources. It is well formatted and of a good length (36KB), and the text is brightened up by six (6) illustrative images. It has a strong lead section that I believe introduces the article concisely but informatively. I hope reviewers will provide me constructive criticism and express their thoughts on the article. —Anonymous Dissident<span <style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk 02:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1a - I don't know much about physics (imagine; a mathematics aficionado not know much about physics!) and so I can't comment on much of the technical side of this article, but the prose isn't up to par.

  • The very first sentence I object to. Two successful restrictive clauses begin with "that", which reads extremely awkwardly, and "is placed under the classification of fermion" is simply redundant.
  • "The quark forms one of the two basic constituents of matter" - as above, unnecessarily verbose. "The quark is" would do just fine. Additionally, two sentences in a paragraph - two consecutive sentences, and the only two sentences - both begin with "The quark", when "it" would do just as well.
  • "are in abundant existence" - also unnecessarily verbose.
  • "are assigned various other properties"
  • "..., and never in isolation" - "and" is unnecessary here, and disrupts the flow of the prose. Furthermore, the sentence that contains this phrase is long, winding, and confusing.

I'm out of time for now; I've read a fair portion of the article though have only taken points from the very beginning. I intend to finish the reading and point out more examples tomorrow. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Looks pretty good after a quick read. In places the text is a bit thick, and leans jargony (especially towards the end sections). There may not be a good way to reduce that without very long explainitory sections, which can be equally awful to read. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make the science easy to understand. If you could point me towards the things that you thought were overly complex, I'll see what I can do. In regards to the thick text, I assume you refer to the last text section? I agree that could be split, but I'd be unsure of a section header scheme there. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fancy external link checker observed that two of the external links had an issue that I didn't understand (so I didn't try to fix). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? All of them worked for me. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All publisher citations overturned and replaced. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, mainly on the prose

  • Lead
    • An untested theory, or one which is supported by little evidence should, I suggest, be termed a hypothesis.
      • I would disagree with that. A hypothesis is notational of the expected results of a particular question or experiment. A theory denotes a broad intellectual architecture which answers many important questions about natural phenomena. There may be cause to believe that this theory doesn't answer those questions correctly (or more probably, that the burden of proof has not been met). But the quark is proposed as a fundamental particle. Currently the article calls it a theory in all but one location, and uses "hypothesis" once. I suggest that the word "hypothesis" there (2nd sentence of the last paragraph of the intro) be changed to "thesis." Huadpe (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
    • "At the time of the theory’s initial proposal, the physical particle "zoo", as it is sometimes referred to, consisted of the two types of hadron (the meson and the baryon) and several of the first leptons, among many others" (my emphasis) For the life of me I can’t work out what his means, specially the "among many others".
      • With respect, that's not a prose issue. What part are you not understanding? The particle physics model consisted of many different types of hadron, as well as a few early leptopns, among various other particles like the atom that had been known of for decades. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Initially, I couldn't understand the phrase "among many others" - what did "others" refer to? You have explained this above - "others" means various particles like the atom. But, in your explanation, you say the model consisted of "many different types of hadron", while in your original sentence you say it consisted of the two types of hadron (the meson and the baryon). So I'm still confused. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for my lack of clarity here. There are two essential types of hadron: meson and baryon. The meson has one quark and one antiquark, while the baryon contains three quarks. All quarks possess a spectrum of different properties such as electrical charge etc.. From quark-antiquark and quark-quark-quark combinations, as well as the property combinations that occur therein, we are given a wide range of different mesons and baryon forms; about 200, to be precise. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This construction: "to temporarily help explain" – splits the infinitive.
      —This is part of a comment by Brianboulton (of 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
      So what? -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Splitting this infinitive leads to a very awkward construction, because the verb "help explain" is complex. The situation is easily avoided by "could be utilized temporarily, to explain..."etc
    • Also the sentence containing it is extremely long and winding.
    • Prolix: "It was in the same year that..." Suggest should be "Also in 1964, extensions…..." etc (we need reminding what year we’re in)
    • Inappropriate use of mdash as hyphen
    • "added appendage"? "added”" is redundant
    • Prolix: "...since no hadrons that had been observed at that time seemed to indicate the presence of another quark type". Try: "...since no hadrons yet observed indicated the presence..." etc.
    • "This number grew..." "This" isn't anchored to anything. You need to say "The number of possible quark types grew..."
    • You don’t need "nine years later" when you give the year 1973. Thus: "In 1973 the number of possible quark types grew to six, when Makoto..." etc
    • Awkward phrasing: "...six quarks made more sense than four considering the two’s study of CP-violation in the same year". Try: "...six quark types made more sense than four on the basis of their current studies of CP-violation".

Look, I’m only half way through the History section and I’m finding prose problems just about every sentence. This article should have had a proper copyedit before coming to FAC, but if you like, I’ll do one now. It might take a while, but it’ll be worth it, as no way is this prose going to make FA as it stands. By the way, I’m a non-scientist but I find the subject interesting, even if I don’t understand all the detail. Leave me a note on my talkpage if you want me to do a copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have done a general copyedit, removing redundancies, repetitions, verbose phrasing etc. I am reluctant to do more for fear of disturbing the physics. It would be as well if someone checked my edits to see that I haven't inadvertently altered a meaning. Anyway, I believe the prose flows better now than it did, notwithstanding my limited ability to understand the article. I hope this has helped. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have a full read-through of the article later to see whether you inadvertently removed any terminologies in your copyediting. In general, however, I'd like to say that I appreciate your work in improving the article's prose. Best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have addressed the most obvious issues, but the article still hav lots of room for improvement. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out where? I can't improve if you don't specify. Where can it be iomproved? Prose? I agree there are some concerns. Article completeness? I assure you I've written about pretty much everything relevant to quarks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed inline tags in some relevant parts — for example, in the Spin section a sentence seems to suggest that quarks rotate around their own axis (something point-like particles can't do) and in the table there is an unsourced coupling between the sign of spin and flavors which I had never heard of before. And the prose is cumbersome, even if I'm trying to fix it when I can.
As for completeness, I don't think there is much more that could be said. (Unless we merge the articles about individual flavors into this one, as I proposed on the talk page.) -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've repaired both those instances. You were right about the point-like particles there, thanks for pointing it out. Turns out spin is an intrinsic property. The unsourced part was also wrong; I dunno how I got that different quarks have an integral + or - spin. they can all have both. Fixed. Thanks for pointing those details out. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy

  • This is looking much better then when I last looked at it. Which is good; exams are soon.
  • "The six flavors of quarks and their most likely decay modes. Mass increases moving from left to right." - opening an article with this will scare the reader off. You need wikilinks, at least, if not a much more simple explanation.
  • "which participates in strong interaction" - participate isn't the right verb here, I don't think. I just checked my textbook (I know) and it doesn't specifically state that they interact via the strong force (it talks about colour force but not in the same context). I've heard it explained as "they interact via the strong nuclear (force|interaction)", force being more common, but that might not be "correct". I dunno if this helps at all, and perhaps participate is the right verb... I just doubt it.
  • are two varieties of hadron, distinguished by the number of quarks in the hadron" - just end the sentence at "quarks".
  • "The proton and neutron hadrons are the constituents of the atom, the most basic form an element can take" - probably put this sentence before the previous one

From the lead. Sorry about the ramblings. Giggy (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced "participate" with "interact", even if now it sounds so repetititititive... -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I withdraw my opposition. Meanwhile, I'm going to read the article and the featured article criteria more carefully, to decide whether to vote for support. -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Looks generally good, but needs some review from someone familiar with the subject; I've found some small misunderstandings so far. Fortunately, I'm familiar with the subject, and in the process of taking a look. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide some examples of the said misunderstandings? I'd be curious to know to what you refer, being the writer of the article; if there are some concepts I'm not grasping, I'd be most grateful to be corrected for my own intellectual purposes, as well as for the benefit of the article. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two misunderstandings so far, both in one sentence: "The discovery of the top quark was the most significant of any of the six quarks, because it was found to be hundreds of times bigger than the hadrons it was theorized to occupy." The first issue is the use of the word "bigger," by which I assume you (or whoever wrote the sentence) meant "more massive," but they're hardly the same thing in this case. The second issue is that the top quark was more massive than "the hadrons it was theorized to occupy." Nobody ever claimed that specific hadrons contained top quarks; they expected the top quark to appear in new hadrons, and to be discovered by the observation of those new hadrons. However, once it was realized that the top quark was very heavy, the Standard Model also predicted that the top quark would appear outside of hadrons. The point was, whoever wrote the sentence roughly understood the issues I've described, but seemed at least to have the explanation a bit muddled. If I see other points of confusion, I'll edit them, as indeed I already did in this case. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The history section currently details the predictions of each kind of quark before it describes any as being discovered. It also leaves out any hint at why new quarks were proposed. These two issues together make it seem like a bunch of quarks were just made up and turned out to be there. In fact, the theoretical predictions of new quarks followed experimental results that gave strong support to the original set, and sought to address specific problems with the existing theory. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if I wrote that; if I did, I'm sorry, it must have been a slip of the mind: I remember learning the difference between something being "big" and "massive" years ago. ;) In regards to them being parts of hadrons, I was sure I removed that earlier on today. The history section: please, if you have information regarding why the quarks were proposed, add it with sources. I mentioned CP-violation as being the catalyst for the six-model, but found it difficult to find information on why the others were proposed. Your improvements are appreciated. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: First this is a preliminary review, I'm giving this after a quick read (article) and without reading the other comments so I'm not influenced by them. I'll give a more detailed review later.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is this article up to date with the 2008 Particle Review?Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would imagine so. I haven't compared this article directly to that, but my sources are, many of them, very recent and up-to-date. Most of what is known about quarks has been established for quite some time, anyway. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why is quark table in various colors? What's the color scheme?Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The quarks match the antiquarks, as do their symbols. The generations are differentiated by different colors. The electric charge is differed for each half of the pair in every gen. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my (Giggy's) comments, there's a few more up above.

I'll finish it off... soon. :-) Giggy (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For information, Glashow and Bjorken were the ones who did the extending, so that's the direction the wording should be clarified in. Also, there is a very good reason why the ups are a different color -- see the section on color charge in the article! -- SCZenz (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, my mistake on the colours - I added that comment before reading that section, and didn't go back and erase it afterwards. Struck now. Giggy (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Lead:
a) "usually known as flavors"—usually is redundent here;
b) "charm, strange, top, and bottom flavors are highly unstable"—remove highly, it is vague;
c) "and differ from quarks only in that some of their properties are inverse"—I suggest "and differ from quarks only in that all their charges have opposite sign".
d) "In nature, quarks are always found bound together"—drop 'found', it is unnecessry.
e) "mesons consist of two quarks, and baryons consit of three"—I suggest "mesons consist of one quark and one anti-quark, and baryons consit of three quarks"
2) History:
a) ""zoo", as it is sometimes referred to, consisted of many types of hadrons, and several of the first leptons, among many others."—I do not understand, which 'many others' refers to. I suggest ""zoo", as it is sometimes referred to, consisted of several leptons and hundreds of different hadrons."
b) "These partons were later recognized as up and down quarks."—needs a citation. As I understand partons are not necessary constituant quarks. They can be quarks from the "sea", i.e. quark-antiquark pairs that spontaniously appear and annihilate. In addition some partons are gluons (see [1]).
c) It should be mentiond that J/ψ meson is also known as charmonium.
3) Properties:
a) "but is an arbitrarily named property that takes its name"—the word name is used twice in one sentence.
b) "The six flavors are named up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom"—drop the word "named".
c) In the same sentence I see "the top and bottom flavors are also sometimes known as truth and beauty, "—please, drop "sometimes".
d) In the next sentence there are two "very" words. Remove them, because they are "very" redundent".
e) "Quarks of higher generations have greater masses and thus are less stable than quarks of lower generations."—not necesary true. For instance, B_mesons are more stable than D_mesons.
f) When discussing generations it should be mentioned that leptons are also divided into the same three generations. This is not a property of the quarks only.
g) "but the electric charge and other quantum numbers are the additive inverse of that of quarks." Please, use simpler language. For instance, "but the electric charge and other other charges have the opposite sign".
h) "There are numerous hadrons, all of which result from the variety of possible quark combinations that can occur and all of which are differentiated by the properties their quarks confer upon them."—this statement is only partially true, because some of the hadrons are excited states of others, and they can have exactly the same quark content.
i) "Electric charge is a property intrinsic to the quark mechanism, and is an important factor in the overall hadron model."—remove this sentence. It provides no usuful inforamation.
j) The same with the following sentence "The electric charge of quarks is an important factor in the construction of atoms."
k) "Composed of duu"—change to "composed of one d and two u quarks".
l) Not only gluons contribute to the mass of hadrons—quarks-antiquarks pairs from the "sea" also contribute.
m) "the duu proton to the ddu neutron"—change to "the proton to the neutron".
n) "are the subjects of the quantum chromodynamics research field."—it is not clear what the word "field" means here. Is it a physical field or one of the areas of research?
o) "occurring approximately 1024 times every second."—unscientific statement. Please, remove it.
p) "that contributes to a quark's indivisibility."—Probably, hadron's indivisibility or quark's inseperability?
q) "The matrix of interactions and exchanges that occurs in a hadron model is complicated by the fact that gluons are able to engage in a process of self-exchange; that is, gluons are able to emit gluons and exchange them with other gluons."—putting it simpler "The strong interactions are non-linear, becauses gluons can emit gluons and exchange gluons with other gluons.

Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything. there were a few things I specifically didn't fix, only two or three. For instance, the thing about antiparticles and "opposite sign": that's not scientific enough, in my opinion. "Inverse" isn't exactly a scientific word anyway, and it's more accurate than an "opposite sign". If there was anything else, just ask and I'll try and fix it/explain my change etc.. Thanks for a detailed review. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument about "opposite sign" at all. I don't think there's any imprecision introduced by that the term, which always means "additive inverse" as far as I know. When it costs us nothing in accuracy, using the simplest language possible is an easy choice. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to support, but can you comment about partons and their identification with up and down quarks (which is incomplete explanation in my opinion)? And also about about contribution of quark-antiquark pairs to the mass? Ruslik (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I wasn't aware of the term "opposite sign" before, and thought it was a made up terminology. I'll change it now. In regards to the parton: my source says that the substructures that were implied to be within the quark by the 1968 SLAC tests were later identified as up and down quarks. Why this is a matter of debate I do not know; I would have thought it would have been obvious that the interior of the proton was composed of u and d? In regards to quark-antiquark pairs: I assume you mean the sea? Take a proton: three valence quarks, the field of gluons, plus the sea of q
q
. I am personally unsure of how much the sea realistically contributes to the mass, and I cannot find a source for it either. If either of you two have the knowledge/sources, I'd be hugely grateful. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this(p.9-10) for the discussion about partons and gluons-quarks. See also Parton_(particle_physics) article. The graph shows that additional q
q
 pairs (including s
s
 pairs) and gluons contribute to scattering, not only three valent quarks. You also can read this (pp.72-100). Latter I will provide additional sources. Ruslik (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the question posed concerned how much sea-quarks contribute to the mass of the hadron. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of up and down quarks, the valence quarks contribute very little to the mass of the hadron -- the quarks have a mass of a few MeV, while the hadron has a mass of at least 900 MeV! The extra energy is in the binding of the valence quarks, which is produced by the gluon field (of which "individual gluons" are quanta, but individual gluons are not a good approximation at low (i.e. ordinary) energy). Now, when you hit a sea quark when you do a deep inelastic scattering experiment, that sea quark is there (loosely speaking) because a gluon "split" into a quark and antiquark. Thus the sea quarks are a manifestation of the same phenomenon that gives the hadron the bulk of its mass, but it is very difficult to make a meaningful statement about "how much sea quarks contribute to the mass of the hadron." It will be difficult to find a source answering that question exactly, because on a technical level the question has no precise meaning. The conclusion, I think, is that our article should avoid such complexities! -- SCZenz (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree; we are an encyclopedia, not a compendium of deep scientific analysis: this article provides more than cursory quark knowledge without presenting a book on the topic, which is quite fine in an encyclopedic context. I'm wondering: should we perhaps create a section on the matter of sea quarks? A mention on the distinction between valence and sea quarks, how they just form out of the vacuum? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a section about sea quarks vs. valence quarks could be useful. Sea quark used to redirect to quark; I changed it to point to Parton (particle physics), but it could point to, e.g. Quark#Valence quarks and sea quarks if such a section were created. -- Army1987!!! 12:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it have it's own header or would it come under something else, like properties? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a section called something like "quarks in hadrons," with three subsections:
  • Description of how quarks combine to make hadrons
  • Color confinement and gluons (already exists)
  • Sea quarks
SCZenz (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an idea could be adding a section on sea quarks to Hadron, making Sea quark redirect to it, and adding a very short introduction to the concept of sea quarks and valence quarks to Quark, linking the more detailed explanation. -- Army1987!!! 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, exactly, would you place opposition based on a hunch? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) You're rewording my statement. Not opposition, not a hunch. Leaning opposition, based on (possibly incorrect) perception that it omits facts )omitted unintentially because they are obvious ones... and for the reality that I read the article and still didn't have any idea what a quark was until I read other articles, which to my mind is unacceptable for an FA. But I have to close now, 'til tomorrow. Striking mention of Oppose to avoid miscommunication; will talk more tomorrow... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, see here. Are you honestly telling me you read the whole article and have no clue what the subject matter is? It's stated quite clearly in the second statement, if the first was too jargony: "It is one of the two basic constituents of matter, the other being the lepton." —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see the content of this article unpacked a bit, especially in the lead. If you'd like to think of it as "Quarks for Dummies" feel free; I think of it as "Quarks for the People". :-) In my mind, it's an issue of accessibility to the broader public. However, it may be debatable whether "accessibility to the broader public" is a component of 1(a). I personally couldn't support without unpacking, but I'm not sure if it's a valid reason to oppose... perhaps I'll ask some other folks, and check back in later... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your comment. I'm happy to alter the lead to this effect, but it will be pretty much impossible to "unpack" it when all I have to go on is that single word. Perhaps if you could provide examples of statements or concepts that you think require a more detailed explanation, then I could work on that. Otherwise, I'm somewhat fielding in the dark here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Ling and AD: does this work for either of you? Giggy (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a stab, but quarks aren't substances. I'll try and think of something else. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Hi again, I really don't mean to leave you hanging, but my Spousal Unit has many items on her Honey Do list today. I have copied the lead (temporarily) to User:Ling.Nut/page2 and will try to get to it this evening, which is probably late morning for those of you in the States. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Quark/archive2&oldid=242750556"