Talk:Nucleon magnetic moment/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Review to follow in due course. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The main problem with the article is a deficit of citations. Everything needs to be covered. So citations required:

• Description: first and third paragraphs

- Citations added; with a correction, see below. Bdushaw (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Neutron: first paragraph

- A bit of reorganization and citation work; done! The first couple of sentences introduce the section. Bdushaw (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Unexpected consequences: first paragraph

- Done!Bdushaw (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Nucleon gyromagnetic ratios: last paragraph

- Done!Bdushaw (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Proton nuclear magnetic resonance: first paragraph

- Citation added, with some cleanup.Bdushaw (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Determination of neutron spin: first paragraph

- Done! Mostly a rearrangement of existing cits. Bdushaw (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Control of neutron beams by magnetism: first paragraph

- Done! (not easy...statements of basic stuff that "everyone knows" are hard to cite!) Bdushaw (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Anomalous magnetic moments and meson physics: first paragraph

- Done! Bdushaw (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Quark model of nucleon magnetic moments: first and third paragraphs

- Done! All that material was from the Perkins cite; an undergraduate high energy physics textbook. Bdushaw (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Measurement:

• You don't say why the neutron having a magnetic moment was "unexpected"

- Not exactly true since this was explicitly described in a section above, however it is a good catch that is worth clarifying. The change motivated a reorganization of the section. Bdushaw (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• I would prefer that the article told us what university they were working at, rather than what city.

- Universities are better, to be sure. Done! Bdushaw (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• "wave function" is two words

- fixed.

Duplicate links:

• Larmor frequency, Nuclear magnetic resonance, magnetic fields, Robert Bacher, Abraham Pais, quantum mechanical. Also: why is Bacher "R. Bacher" and "Robert Bacher"?

- Re:R. Bacher/Robert Bacher - all names of the article have been standardized to "First Initial. Last Name", name links corrected Bdushaw (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

- Question: I think you mean Larmor precession, which is the link, rather than frequency. The article has the initial link to Larmor precession, then indicates this as a Main article in the subsection of that name, then links "Larmor frequency" to that link. These don't seem redundant to me; they seem useful to the reader. Advice? Thx Bdushaw (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC) To some extent the issue occurs because "Nucleon gyromagnetic ratios" appears before "Larmor precession" in the article. I may move the gyromagnetic ratio section to the bottom, but somehow think it is better for the physical constants to be given near the top of the article. I'll think about it. Bdushaw (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

- Redundant links removed; still contemplating Larmor precession. Bdushaw (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

See also:

Not convinced that all of these are useful. Bohr magneton, electron magnetic moment, neutron diffraction, antineuton and antiproton are already linked in the article. (MOS:NOTSEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.) GAs have to conform to MOS:LAYOUT (Criterion 1b)

- Duplicate links removed.

References:

• fn 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 27, 32, 40, 57 have a different date format from the rest. Suggest converting to dmy. (You should be able to do this by adding a {{use dmy dates}} template.)

- Ah, fixed now...mdy formatting, just so. Going with mdy format for the article. Bdushaw (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• fn 28, 31: add access dates. Also: Why is NIST italicised here?

- access dates added. NIST italicised seems to be from the "web" reference format. NIST is not explicitly italicized. Bdushaw (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• fn 35 isbn? page number? Also: why is 1991 in bold?

- Fixed and updated.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Alas, I am away from all my books and papers for the next several months, but I'll do what I can by way of citations. Bdushaw (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no rush. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I've made a first pass through everything, with corrections, deletions, citations, etc. as best as I can. I'd still prefer to keep the slightly redundant Larmor procession/frequency links (i.e., would a reader know to go to the Larmor procession article when they run across "Larmor frequency"? Seems a bit much to ask of readers.) Happy to try to make additional improvements as needed! Bdushaw (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. But we still have some paragraphs lacking references:

• Second paragraph of "Description"
• First paragraph of "Neutron"
• First paragraph of "Unexpected consequences"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

All fixed now, I hope. In the same spirit, I found a couple of other places where there were citation gaps, all fixed! Bdushaw (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Final sentence of "Anomalous magnetic moments and meson physics" and we're good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That one is the famous Pais, "Inward Bound" reference, a marvel. Done! Bdushaw (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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.