Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Physics articles by quality/1

If this is true, an object may travel at the speed of light, but it will not travel through space when this is done, as no time will pass while it is at the speed of light.

--4.239.0.189 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

It has passed, and received FA status. Badbilltucker 18:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• I agree. It is, strangely, a vandalism magnet, so perhaps it ought be on a few more watchlists, though. — brighterorange (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

If one has to question as to why then may I suggest one go back to the basics and research how given velocities result in force. (edit comment)

                        thanks to theproviders.                                                                       topians@hotmail.com (edit comment)

It is of very high importance to chemists and engineers (particlurly chemical engineers) working in a great many industries . I have classified it as Class A because it has been well-written, extremely well referenced, and organized well as per Wikipedia practice. It serves a highly useful function by documenting the fact that there two commonly used expressions for the Henry Law (each the invert of the other) and they are often confused one for the other. It also serves a useful function in exemplifying how to convert from one set of units to another since there are many sets of units in use.- mbeychok 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

It is of very high importance to chemists and engineers who work in a great many industries. I have classified it as Class A because it has been well-written, organized well as per Wikipedia practice and includes an excellent Bibliography of pertinent reference texts. - mbeychok 03:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

This article is well-written with an appropriate series of sections identified by headings. It does have external references to scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals. It also has a history of years of contribution and refinement so I believe it represents a consensus. Myself, I already knew the material, but I do believe this article would be very useful to non-expert readers. Personally I would recommend it to colleagues in other fields of interest.

--GoodElfNo3 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of High

This article contributes a depth of knowledge about a topic of broad concern, the physics underlying the existence of a loophole in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That makes the importance "High" in my opinion.

--GoodElfNo3 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

It is of High importance to chemists and to chemical engineers. I cannot speak for its importance to Physicists. - mbeychok 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

It is of very high importance to chemical engineers, refrigeration engineers and HVAC engineers. (edit comment)

It is of very high importance to chemists and engineers as well as to a great many industries (such as the natural gas industry, for example). I have classified it as Class A because it has been well-written, extremely well referenced, and organized well as per Wikipedia practice. It serves a most useful function by documenting the fact that there is no universally accepted set of standard conditions, and therefore one must always define the standard being used in any particular case. - mbeychok 18:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic
• It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with

• a well-written introduction and
• an appropriate series of headings to break up the content.

• It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites.
• Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems.
• Very useful to readers.

• A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.

• May miss a few relevant points.
• Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work.
• Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.

-Done, but only 2 editors participated, and one was automated.

• At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.

-Nominated by The Anome 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC), but failed.

If anyone disagrees, I'd love to hear about it. -AndrewDressel 18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Who rated this article "Low Importance" ? It should of course be "Top Importance". (edit comment)

the Electromagnetic spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation) seems to have big categories like : -Gama rays 1-10pm -X rays 10pm-10nm -UV rays 10nm-380nm -Visible Light 380nm-780nm -Infra Red 750nm-1mm -Microwave 1 mm-30 cm -Radio Wave 1 mm-1m /!\ it does overlap :) -Long radio wave 1m-

shall we put microvawe inside Radio Wave or find an other way to call the wave between 30cm and 1m ? (edit comment)

"PISS OFF - U R A FUCKER The speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second (fixed by definition). Although some people speak of the "velocity of light", the word velocity is usually reserved for vector quantities, which have a direction."

As you can see somebody is trying to be a smart ass by inserting profanity in the definition. (see original article, as of Feb 13th 2007)

This should be corrected ASAP (edit comment)

There is a simple algebraic way to derive the values of Planck's quantum of action and of energy from the equations of Newtonian physics. There is a slightly more complicated way to derive the value of the quantum of energy WITHOUT using either h or the frequency. Is anyone out there interested?

glird@bellsouth.net (Dr. G. I. Lebau) (edit comment)

needs inline citations --plange 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

A few issues are treated in my textbook "Elementary Lectures in Statistical Mechanics, Springer-Verlag). In particular, in the actual book by Gibbs, which is reasonably a reliable source on what Gibbs wrote:

1) Gibbs used a different fundamental postulate, _not_ the principle of equal a priori probabilities, because Gibbs viewed the canonical ensemble as primary and the microcanonical ensemble as secondary. In modern notation, Gibbs viewed W_j = exp(- beta E_j) as fundamental.

2) The notion that statistical mechanics is only applicable to large systems is not found in Gibbs' book. Indeed, he deliberately compares his treatment with a treatment that he does not identify as Boltzmann's, showing the differences in the predictions of teh two models.

3) Gibbs certainly does not speak of the H-Theorem. After all, in Gibbsian statistical mecahnics the entropy is a constant of the motion. (edit comment)

1 wikipedia says i have messages but how do i read them? I want to add a picture to a page? How do I edit a comment below a picture? How do I get help. How do I sign this so that I can get an answer? Thanks for any help that I can get. (edit comment)

I made a stab at rating the importance/class of the article. I think the article qualifies as "high" importance since the Annus Mirabilis is not only a significant historical event, but also significant for the development of physics. (Not to mention a great deal of "lore" surrounding the publication of these papers). I put it as "B-class" since it seemed things were a bit unstable (eg, the merge suggestions) but it seemed that the article was in pretty good shape, well referenced and written, etc.

If I could weigh in on the suggestion of GR inclusion. Not sure what the poster intended to mean, exactly. Certainly a link to an explanation of GR or the description of the GR page would be warranted. But GR wasn't published in the Annus Mirabilis... Wesino 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

This sentence is confusing - not to mention, its tone (and lax grammar) is not befitting for an encyclopedia. (edit comment)

• References aren't formatted properly, please see {{cite web}} on how to
• A lot of external links throughout the article first ones are found near reference 5, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics and the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
• Cold fusion is a nuclear fusion reaction that has been reported to occur near , "reported" reword that
• two nuclei are forced to join together to form a heavier nucleus. During the process, energy is released. sounds better
• By the mid-1990s, most governments and scientists had dismissed the concept as illusion. remove 'most'
• In 2003, about 200 scientists were contributing to the field or participating in , remove 'about'
• Still, its report said, many experiments were poorly documented,, poorly worded

That's jsut the lead so this article needs a good copy-edit. References are in the right spot, images are fine. I suggest you get another peer review or ask someone interested on the subject to perform a copy-edit. Please also read Tony's redudancy excersises as this article has a lot. M3tal H3ad 12:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed, no action taken. Feel-free to renominate for GA when issues are addressed but i strongly advise a peer review first. M3tal H3ad 01:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

1. No published experimental evidence of the properties or structure is presented for dark matter. Rather, all concepts of dark matter are inferred from the lack of evidence in other theories, such as the missing matter for a flat, critical density, or to explain an apparent acceleration of the universe.

2. Dark matter properties should be predictable from current inflationary models but the article states no prediction or experimental evidence based on these models.

3. The suggestion that dark matter should exist to make up for "missing" matter that is predicted by a theory is a circular argument. The lack of evidence to support a theory should not be rationalized by presenting another theory which in itself is pure speculation.

4. The search for dark matter goes back several decades and with the current lack of experimental evidence for it's existence, theories that predict a required mass of the universe (which appears to be missing based on observation) should be re-examined. (edit comment)

"This effect occurs in most optically transparent dielectric materials (including liquids) when they are subject to strong magnetic fields."

...describes the use of "dielectric" materials.

Is this correct? Shouldn't it be "diamagnetic" materials instead? (edit comment)

Amplitude A is not always positive. When omega is less than 1, A is positive, other wise A should be negtive. (edit comment)

I would propose that the discussion of zero-length springs adds nothing to the discussion of Hooke's Law, and should appear as a standalone Wikipedia entry. Since the only discussion of zero-length springs that I've ever seen relates to gravimetry, the web page at http://jclahr.com/science/psn/zero/winding/gravity_sensor.html would make an excellent starting point.

Peter 20:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

This article still needs work in order to be helpful at a glance: better formatting and more precise wording. Progress has been made since the article failed GA nomination in June.

BailesB 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Concerning the rating, first stellar wind should not link here. Also, the general section of properties (the subsection are fine, I believe) need work. For example, the composition is confusing. I have no clue where the 200 to 889 km/s speed comes from. USferdinand 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Snailwalker | talk 16:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Needs detailed references to make higher class--Grahamec 04:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

My God, did the author of this article think there would be people unfamiliar with the use of a mirror, but logging onto the Internet and using Wikipedia to discover they could see their face in one? (edit comment)

The "B"-class assessment is due to this article needing extensive work to be a quality article. Perhaps once the current edit cycle is complete, it may be appropriate to reconsider this designation. --EMS | Talk 05:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Sometimes on sees the term "half wave plate" hyphenated in this manner: "half-wave plate", but since "half" does not modify "wave" but rather "wave plate" then the term should not be hyphenated at all. (edit comment)

It is known that negative electric charge elements repel one another, so that a large force is required in order to hold the electron together. No combination of electric and magnetic forces can produce a stable state. Malcolm MacGregor and other writers have noted that gravitational forces could solve the stability problem if the electron is very small (approaching Schwarzschild radius size).

Feynman wrote (1961) "--- We have been computing terms like a blind man exploring a new room, but soon we must develop some concept of this room as a whole, and to have some general idea of what is contained in it ---".

The challenge by Feynman is to devise an electron model that accounts for electron properties and the diagrams used in QED. The "Black hole electron" article is significant because it provides information that relates to the electron model challenge.

DonJStevens 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Intro is too long, see Wikipedia:Lead section. No equations or pictures. I think it should have sections on the major aspects with links to there main articles, e.g. Basic Equations, Nozzles Diffusers and Wind Tunnels, Shock Waves, Mach number - Supersonic and Subsonic, Lineralised theory, Numerical Non-linear models (picking some topics from Anderson, John D. (1984). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. ISBN 0-07-001656-9. ) No sources. (edit comment)

• Article covers many important aspects, but still needs more figures showing different streamline/streakline patterns in flows.
• Possibility of adding timeline which are also used to describe/visualize a flow. Timeline describes the deformation of adjacent fluid particles as they move around.
  

  

  Sketch showing different types of lines in a flow field.
• Also can add vortex line, which is same as streamline but instead of velocity, it is tangential to vorticity ().
  • In case, these lines are added, would be a better idea to change the title of the page to say something like, flowfield lines.

myth 13:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Blank

Comments regarding importance of topic

• Blank (edit comment)

68.160.224.95 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)LK - Bronx (edit comment)

• Needs more links to related concepts such as angular momentum and angular motion in general. A template grouping the most important concepts in rotational kinetics at the bottom would help too.
• Real world examples of angular acceleration (I made the suggestion of hula hoops) would help, as well as some examples of fields where calculations using angular velocity are regularly used.
• Mathematical section is covered quite well
  • A diagram showing velocity resolved into parallel and perpendicular components could be useful in the derivation section

Richard001 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

The article has a fair amount of information but it has major flaws.

• The information is unstructured and cluttered. IMO, better would be
  • (introduction)
  • Detection
  • Classification (with sources, acceleration mechanisms...)
  • History
  • Influences
    • Effects on life (space travel, ambient...)
    • Effects on weather
  • Cosmic rays and fiction
• Much of the information is irrelevant or overdetailed, while some of the basics are missing: interesting secondary effects like lightning and cloud formation are mentioned, but there's no accurate description of (possible) cosmic ray sources or acceleration mechanisms.

There are strong points as well:

• Good historical review.
• References seem to be in order.
• Connections to everyday life.

The Mid-priority range was judged by the topics already assessed.

I hope this is useful. I'll see if I get round to doing some stuff. I don't want to be too drastic all by my myself, though. --Svenlafe 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)