From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Interferometry has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
June 27, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Physics (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Advice on re-organization[edit]

{{helpme}} Like others on this talk page, I found this article to be surprisingly lame considering the importance of the subject matter. The original article was written by people who were mainly interested in astronomical interferometry, and other applications of interferometry were sort of neglected. Most of the edits over the last few years have been timid additions and corrections compared with what the article really needed in terms of a rewrite. So I decided to try my hand at reorganization.

What I need is another set of eyeballs critiquing what I've done so far. Am I headed on the right path, or no? And what in tarnation should I do with the awful Interferometry#Imaging interferometry section? I shoved it to the rear, but should I really be splitting it out to its own separate article? Or should I merge it into Astronomical interferometer and let those guys deal with the mess? (not a very nice thing to do ...) Maybe I should just (shudder) delete it?

Also, I removed the "radio-astronomy" template at the bottom. This contributed to the article imbalance. Agree?

Thanks for the extra eyes, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interferometry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ankit Maity (talk · contribs) 16:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • All title headings should be correctly capitalized I believe they already meet MOS???
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. All "cite web" references now have publisher and access date. Page authors have been added where found. Publication/copyright dates have been added where found.
Clarification needed: Although I can always find a publisher (almost by definition, a web reference suitable as a source provides that sort of information), not all web pages have a named author or publication date.
    • More sources needed in sections like "Basic principles". Done
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Images need succinct captions. None were missing captions.
Clarification requested. The figures are tightly integrated with the text. With two exceptions, each figure is referred to in the text by figure number and its significance to the subject matter is discussed in the main body of the text, sometimes in great depth. Therefore, in most cases, I considered "suitable captions" to be relatively short, just enough to identify the subject matter. I have no "decorative" figures. They are all important to the text. The word "succinct" means "expressed in few words; concise; terse." Does that mean that you want my already brief captions to be shorter? Or longer?
    • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. Done
  1. Overall:

I am working on the other points. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Like to make it succinct, you could change "A view of the solar disk in 2003-Oct-30 during a period of some of the largest solar activity events since the advent of space-based solar observing, taken by the EIT at 195 Å" to "A view of the solar disk in 2003-Oct-30 taken by taken by the EIT at 195 Å" because a lot of solar activity on a particular day isn't that rare. And when I first saw the web references I found some of the access dates missing.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The Halloween storm of 2003 was quite exceptional. However, I shortened this caption, since this is an article about interferometry, not solar dynamics. Likewise I moved some information from the Fig. 17 caption to the main body of the text. However, a similar attempt to move information from the Fig. 2 caption to the text body didn't work. Likewise, in Fig. 15, the descriptive elements in the caption are essential to understanding the figure and belong with the figure, not separated from it in the main body of the text. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
And about the title headings. You could change "Double path versus common path" to "Double path versus Common path".--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No can do. That violates WP:MOS#Section headings which states "headings are in sentence case, not title case" i.e. "the initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects)". Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, yeah I am very sorry.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 15:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
What else needs to be done? As I explained earlier, I believe that the captions for Fig. 2 and Fig. 15 need to remain the length that they are. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you add some tags where it is tagged {{cn}} --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 11:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Will do.
Could you remove the lines like "Fig. 5 illustrates the operation of three amplitude splitting interferometers." (except if it's in brackets)? You know, the captions are already given and the other point is that could you remove the phrase "Figure 5" and all. Suppose if its given like "Figure X" change it to the figure in the right or whatever. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 11:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Referring to images by their relative placement is highly discouraged, since different browsers, monitor sizes, zoom factors etc. will change their relative placement. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#How to place an image we read: "Avoid referring to images as being on the left or right. Image placement is different for viewers of the mobile version of Wikipedia, and is meaningless to people having pages read to them by assistive software. Instead, use captions to identify images." I regularly test my pages against Chrome, Firefox, IE (compatibility and non-compatibility modes are very different!), iPad and Nook. I will reduce the redundancies that you pointed out, but the tight integration of text and images requires me to use explicit figure references. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reduced the redundancy that you noted and added the requested references. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Figure 10 is missing[edit] (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Needs History section[edit]

Considering the broad impact that this subject has had on many areas of science, there should be a short section on the history of the development of this idea. This is actually the information I hoped to find on this page. (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into adding a history section. Thanks for the suggestion! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete reference to White–Juday warp-field interferometer[edit]

Providing a link to the White–Juday warp-field interferometer in the "See Also" section implies that this is a type of interferometer that is different than those already listed. It is not. It is a Michelson interferometer being used to detect optical pathlength changes that might be caused by changes in "warp fields." I have therefore deleted the reference. CQ123 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Surveillance, and warfare applications missing :)[edit]

This article is missing the beef on NSA and other agencies use of interferometry for surveillance and electronic warfare. Interferometry involves directing frequencies for active scans of homes, people, brains, effects and the like or even passive scans as energy emits from alternative sources such as electronic devices, over the horizon radar, cell towers, and even human beings (bioelectromagnetic emanations). Interferometry is used to create holographic 3D scans and 3D fields of energy remote from the transmitter. Interferometry has weapons applications, using the energy from transmitters to assault people, do weather modification, house haunting simulations, projections of holograms in the sky and environment, sound creation such as the frey effect and microwave auditory hearing effect, and even alteration of brainwaves based on Robert Malech's 1974 patent, apparatus and method for remotely reading and altering brainwaves (the patent describes using military radar/satellites and interferometry to read and alter brainwaves).

Numerous scientists including Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Fred Bell, and Dr. Robert Duncan describe interferometry being used from space, land and sea based platforms for these purposes yet the articles are devoid of information on the matter. Military documents and patents and numerous articles also describe such.

NSA whistleblower Russell Tice described in numerous interviews including Russia Today's Breaking the Set with Abby Martin using space capability to spy domestically on Americans, including lawyers, journalists, congressmen, senators judges, banks, and civillians - under classified special access programs, exceptionally controlled information programs, very restricted knowledge programs, and the like.

Based on a review of wikipedia articles it seems as if military applications are being censored and this common knowledge, often even taught at universities, is being kept from public knowledge bases such as wikipedia. (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Superpose vs Superimpose[edit]

The Basic Principles section claims that interferometry uses the principle of superposition, yet the lead links to superimposed. Shouldn't this link be changed to superposed? Mysticdan (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mysticdan: Good catch! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Error in optical flat interferometry diagram[edit]

Just corrected a serious booboo of mine in the optical flat diagram in the Engineering and applied science section. Due to 180° phase reversal of the ray reflecting from the bottom surface, while the ray undergoing internal reflection from the top surface undergoes no phase change, constructive interference occurs with path length difference of odd multiples of λ/2, not even. Sorry. --ChetvornoTALK 01:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)