Talk:Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.

Summary

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm working my way through the criteria listed above, and will post comments as they arise. When the comments no longer need to be addressed, I'll cross them out.Easy bits first... Amitchell125 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Images

 * All the images are named as being your own work. However, to know they are free to use, the Wikicommons pages needs to include more information about where the pictures used to make them originated from. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi @Amitchell125, thanks for reviewing. I'm not sure I understand what you want me to do, what exactly should I add to wikicommons pages - a statement, template? I used my own images because it is hard to find anyone else's (good quality) copyleft work. Ponor (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, as an example of what I mean, look at File:ARPES setup - ultraviolet source - sample holder - electron analyzer.svg. It's a great image, which in WikiCommons you have said is your own work. However, there is also a comment that says "Cross-wiki upload from en.wikipedia.org". To check the svg image you made, I need to find the images of the UV source, the sample holder, and the spectrometer on Wikipedia. If you didn't draw them yourself, you need to acknowledge where they came from. Hope this helps. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Amitchell125 The "cross-wiki upload" note is there because I uploaded the images while working on this article at en.wikipedia.org (Insert > Images and media, in Visual Editor). But it appears that images uploaded here end up at Wikimedia Commons as well. All POV-Ray renderings are mine, and so is the only photograph, few Inkscape illustrations and experimental data. Hope this helps. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Amitchell125 (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Links to other articles

 * The sample holder accommodates samples of crystalline materials. - Link to crystalline, not crystalline materials.	(R: ✅)
 * I would amend the link resistive heaters to ‘resistors’.	(R: resistor might be misleading, it's not the form shown in that article, so I prefer Joule/resistive heating/heaters)
 * Remove the duplicate link in ...according to Bloch's theorem.. (R: ✅)
 * Ditto …..and quasiparticle lifetimes. (quasiparticle) and the link in ...(2PPE)….	(R: ✅)
 * ...extension of a manipulator… – unlink manipulator (already linked). (R: ✅)
 * With 'ultraviolet lasers' – link to lasers.	(R: ✅)
 * Amend microchannel to 'micro-channel'. (R: I am amending the linked article, web search confirms it's microchannel )
 * ... pulsed laser and delay lines. - the link to delay lines needs to be sorted.	(R: ✅ removing delay lines and explaining)


 * Links that need to be added
 * I would add links where needed inside the captions. Duplicate links are allowed (see MOS:DL). (R: ✅)
 * Add links in their first instance in the follow places:
 * Lead – momentum; excitations (Electron excitation). (R: ✅ linking momentum for free electrons, crystal momentum for bound electrons; excitations = collective /electron/ excitations aka quasiparticles - I did not want an explicit mention of quasiparticles in the lead, excitations were present in the old article so I kept them)
 * Principle - electronic states (Energy level) (R: ✅ linking to Electronic states, even though it redirects /for now/ to Energy level, state is not just energy level); binding energy (R: ✅); kinetic energy (moved up from the Instrumentation section) (R: ✅); vector (Vector (mathematics and physics)) (R: ✅ linking to Bloch wave...vector); momentum (R: ✅); parabolic (Parabola) (R: ✅); parameterized (Parameter) (R: ✅), but I'm not convinced parameterized is an actual word) (R: what's meant is that Vo is not known, so it's a parameter whose value needs to be adjusted until many k_perp values make sense; two spellings: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/parametrize).
 * Instrumentation – scattering (R: wikilink in intro); monochromatic (R: ✅ linking to monochromator); polarized (R: ✅); meV (Electronvolt) (R: ✅ linking to millielectronvolt, so it shows spelled-out when hovered); X-rays (R: already in intro); polar (Polar coordinate system ) (R: ✅ 3D, Spherical coordinate system); azimuth (R: ✅); K (...as low as 1 K…) (R: ✅), see MOS:LINK; calibration (R: ✅); angular resolution (R: ✅); voltages (R: ✅).
 * Theory – perturbation (R: ✅ link to Quantum perturbation theory); spin (R: ✅); delta distribution (Dirac delta function) (R: ✅); algorithm (R: ✅); Kramers-Kronig relation (R: ✅).
 * R: Excellent suggestions, many thanks! Ponor (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References section

 * A page number is needed for Ref 1 (Hüfner).	(R: I am citing the 1st chapter of the book now, the rest is unimportant; Ref 2 is my preferred source; will add a third review article soon)
 * There is a url available for Ref 1 (Hüfner) - here. (R: ✅ adding URL, thanks!)
 * Ref 20 (Chiang), Ref 25(Lu et lal) and Ref 26 (Weinelt) and Ref 27 (Ueba & Gumhalter) all need a template added after the reference. (Ref 3 (Hüfner) done already) (R: ✅)
 * Ref 4 (MBScientific) needs to improved so that the information in the text can be verified, at present it appears only to lead to the company’s main page. (R: The link should open their products page, which covers the same instruments the other two companies have; VUV lightsource link has a page number /30/ in it that may change with every update to their site)
 * Ref 8 (lightsources) doesn’t appear to verify the text. (R: I've moved it after synchrotron; energy ranges in the parentheses are typical for ARPES insertion devices at these synchrotrons)
 * Ref 16 (LaShell et al) - a url here is available (subscription required). (R: ✅ adding the template)

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick fail (tags, criteria 1)
Many thanks for the work done since the start of the review Ponor, and for all the work you have put into the article so far. GA Criteria 2 – 6 are all satisfied (for instance, the references are a great asset to the article, as are many of the images). Criteria 1 has not been met, and this merits a ‘quick fail’ as there are too many issues to be addressed by this review. Once satisfactorily addressed, the article should definitely be renominated for GA.

The article now has tags, as the lead section is not an adequate summary of the article;  in places it is too technical and difficult to read and the prose needs to be copy edited.

The lead section needs to be a clearly written and accessible summary of the main points in the article, written “in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article”. See MOS:INTRO and also see WP:EXPLAINLEAD for an explanation of what to include in the lead section of a technically difficult article like this.

The article is too technical for most readers. See WP:TECHNICAL for advice about how to make it more accessible, which notes, “Some topics are intrinsically complex or require much prior knowledge gained through specialized education or training. It is unreasonable to expect a comprehensive article on such subjects to be understandable to all readers. The effort should still be made to make the article as understandable to as many as possible, with particular emphasis on the lead section. The article should be written in simple English language as non-experts can understand properly.”

The main text starts begins with language that is highly technical, with terms and concepts included that are beyond the understanding of most readers, perhaps including physics students (photoemission spectroscopy techniques; the binding energy; Bloch wave vector; a parabolic, free-electron-like final state). This first section in my opinion shouldn’t include any mathematical expressions at all, and some of the terms included are very tricky to read or understand, and some of the symbols have not been defined. The Theory section is the place for any complex mathematical expressions.

I have looked carefully at the text, and in places the quality of the prose makes the reading of the article even more difficult. Some sentences are too long (an example – "Light sources range from compact noble-gas discharge UV lamps and radio-frequency plasma sources (10–⁠40 eV), ultraviolet lasers (5–⁠11 eV) to synchrotron insertion devices that are optimized for different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (from 10 eV in the ultraviolet to 1000 eV X-rays."). There are many examples where the prose could do with copy editing, such the impenetrable “The slit width will determine the step size of the angular scans: if a 30 mm long slit is served with a 30° plume, this will, in the narrower (say 0.5 mm) direction of the slit average signal over a 0.5mm by 30°/30mm, that is, 0.5° span, which will be the maximal resolution of the scan in that other direction.”)

Although the images are great, there are too many of them, some are too large, and their captions could be more concise.

I would encourage you to put the necessary work into the article (the tags will perhaps get people to contribute), and then renominate the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)