Talk:Gordon L. Kane

Issues
I see lots of unsubstantiated peacock terms in this article; 'leading' gets thrown around a lot, an article of his is described as 'one of the single most important references', 'influential' is used to describe his Scientific American articles, his books are labelled 'classic', etc. Examining the history of the article, all constructive edits trace to the physics department at University of Michigan, where Kane works. It seems likely that a person or persons affiliated with him in some way are the sole contributors to this article. Reading the rest of the article, references are obviously lacking for many claims and there are some dubious statements like '...have shown that scalar superpartners should have masses of order tens of TeV', which I imagine many would not agree with without qualifiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.82.207 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The UM contributor obviously wants to advertise Kane's books as well judging by the original text they appended to two of the books listed (now removed):
 * Particle Garden -- the Standard Model of Particle Physics for any curious person
 * Supersymmetry: unveiling of the ultimate laws of nature -- supersymmetry made accessible to any reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.82.207 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)