Talk:X-ray fluorescence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
The article mentions the verb "analyze" in the fourth paragraph, but at no point does it say what XRF actually does. This subject requires a pretty meaty article. I'll have a go when I get a minute. . . . LinguisticDemographer 14:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I notice that both the French and German articles are much better. . . .LinguisticDemographer 14:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re-write 24 Dec 2006
I made a start on this and it remains work in progress. There was a commercial link, and I toyed with the idea of deleting it, but decided instead to expand it to a (probably) full list of manufacturers, as in the French article. Since these are few in number, and their websites provide useful information, this may be acceptable, but wiki policy may well dictate that they all be removed. . . . LinguisticDemographer 00:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In adding this text, I'm very conscious of the fact that separate articles exist for EDX and WDX. I have encountered this problem elsewhere (see for example cement). On the one hand, the general-interest reader prefers (I think) to have a "one-stop-shop" to understand the various related branches of a subject. If the sub-sections are devolved to separate articles, both the "mother" and "daughter" articles seem irritatingly truncated, and put the casual reader off. On the other hand, incorporating multiple branches into a single article may cause it to become unweildy (and this may well be happening here). In this instance, the daughter articles as they currently exist are scarcely more than dictionary definitions, and I feel (I may be wrong) that they might as well stay that way. In a conventional encyclopedia, this sort of problem would probably be settled by Editorial Policy. Maybe a lot of what I have added should be transferred (or duplicated?) to the daughter articles. I would welcome discussion of this. . . . LinguisticDemographer 16:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
