Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive January 2015

I'm pasting it here as a template, so it won't take up much space. Also, I intend to post this in a few articles. So... tell me what you think.

Source (Template page)

I'm curious as to which articles you want to post this in, as the main articles already have similar comparisons. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac: The article about force didn't have a comparison, for example. The Standard Model also didn't. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't find any article with the comparison. Suggestion: Make "Gravitation" etc clickable blue links. Actually, make pretty much everything clickable. YohanN7 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@YohanN7: I agree, it'd be better. However, I'd have to change the background colors for a better visibility, but that is not a problem. I will add some hyperlinks tomorrow Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 01:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You should not (cannot?) reference a gif for the source of your information. _{(even if the creators are from Berkeley)} Primefac (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You have electric charged particles for EM force. Anything about magnetic moment (for the magnetic part)? (I'm probably confused).

I'd find it very interesting to see a F = f(d) equation for each force, assuming a spherical source (well dipole for a magnet). This is interesting because Fgravity and Felectric have the identical form. I've never seen the form that the force formulas take for the other forces. Lehasa (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lehasa: The magnetic part also depends on electrically charged particles. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your strength scales need more explanation. "Strength in the scale of quarks" should have a 1 under the quark column -- that's how any similar situation is handled (e.g. planet size relative to earth, earth=1). Lehasa (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How can you compare the intensity of a force with a quark? This isn't about size, like in the example you meantioned Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can someone tell me how often the bot runs? The one that checks the articles for quality and upgrades their rating from stub-class to C-class to B-class? Thanks. Lehasa (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no bot, the process is done by real-life humans. Bots wouldn't be able to figure out the ratings. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But, this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics#Current_status_of_physics_articles says that it is automatically updated by a bot. If you look at the bot log page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Physics_articles_by_quality_log#Assessed) , it actually lists articles that it has assessed. Please clarify what's happening. Thanks! Lehasa (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The bot, User:WP 1.0 bot, is not doing the assessments; it is merely summarizing information about assessments done by humans in a table. As it says at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot#Output, the bot runs roughly once per three days. It does a lot since it analyzes many projects. So it takes a long time to run and should not be run too often. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

JRSpriggs is spot on. You can check this yourself--go to the talk page of an article the bot has "assessed" and look at the edit history--you will see a human has recently made the assessment, e.g., the recent GA assessment of John Archibald Wheeler. --Mark viking (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much guys. Lehasa (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Then you can always suspect quite a few of the Wikipedia editors of actually being bots (maybe unjustifiably so in some cases). Some articles rating seems to be based on length only. You will rarely see a two-page article or shorter rated C or better, no matter how good they are. A topic in physics, and especially math, can be both notable enough for an article and yet very narrow, motivating a page only. A purely length-based assessment in the range Stub through B class wouldn't be extremely off the current rating. Then start counting references, automatically checking the "reliability" of those, and images, check spelling and grammar, presence of "mandatory sections", blue links to related buzzwords, count page watchers and views per day, number of edits, "who" has edited (is he/she associated with good or bad articles) and you'll get a good approximation. YohanN7 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have had a discussion on the Uncertainty principle article about the lack of citations in a large part of the article. I was reprimanded by an editor who said:

Inappropriate complaint. The sections that were defaced by counterproductive citation templates, all in the name of improving the article!, are amply referenced in the main articles linked, to which the reader who does no appreciate the elementary nature of the remarks involved should turn to for help. The formal examples are standard quantum mechanics, and it is egregiously unreasonable to expect a truckload of one's preferred quantum mechanics texts tacked on for "verification"?! The reader unable to recognize these summary examples (not learn about them--this is not a tutorial!) should do due diligence and go inform himself in the main articles. I find the citation templates pointless, distracting, and tendentious. Please remove them.

Is this the standard in Physics articles? The project page says that one of the aims of the project is "Making sure all articles are properly referenced." I have also questioned the lack of references in Introduction to quantum mechanics. Myrvin (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think that you are correct in this instance. If a reference exists on another Wikipedia page, it is a two-minute process to copy and paste that reference to the first article. Saying "those references are out there, somewhere, just go find them!" is a deflection and an improper attitude to have. The entire point of a {{citation needed}} tag is to be annoying and point out that there needs to be a reference! Primefac (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Editors have varied opinions about citation density, but one guideline a lot of us follow is WP:SCICITE. The guideline suggests that for uncontroversial knowledge, at least one citation per section or one citation per paragraph, is appropriate. The idea is that these citations show the reader where more information may be found, rather than verifying specific sentences. The Uncertainty principle article does have some unreferenced sections and would be improved by references there. That said, I tend to use the {{citation needed}} template for controversial sentences and use the {{Refimprove section}} and {{Refimprove}} templates for encouraging references for sections or articles with uncontroversial material. --Mark viking (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac, and thanks for that Mark. If I knew about WP:SCICITE, I'd forgotten it. I was wondering if there was some sort of get-out clause for Physics articles - something like: 'If they don't understand the material in this article, they shouldn't be reading it.' I doubt if the refimprove tag would be any better received than the citation one. Myrvin (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed seems almost like dubious in that it casts doubt on the sentence or formula to which it is attached. Since reference improve is applied to whole sections, it is not so offensive. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Could somebody please take a look at Plasma (physics). There was some vandalism done to the lede a little while ago, and it's currently in kind of a garbled state. I don't know enough about the subject to be sure my corrections would make sense, so looking for a subject matter expert to take a look. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the lead to the 14 January version, which looks more sensible to me. --Mark viking (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Ryzhou (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this draft which is up for review at AfC is about physics. If not, can someone suggest where I should post a notice about it? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Anne Delong, it's a thermodynamics article, which fits. It could use some more sources, though, as currently the only references are from the creators of the theory. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but obviously I don't have the knowledge to do it. The theory appears to be mentioned in a number of books (SEE HERE). If this is a useful topic, maybe one of this project's members will help out the editor.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)