Talk:Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model

Anyone understand this? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.168.144 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is well-taken. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, explaining concepts for the average person with reliable references. With a subject this technical, it's a tall order to achieve this ideal, yet the reader with a degree in maths or physics isn't well-served either. At the time of writing, the article gives NO explanation for ANY of the concepts. The reader is sent on a game of chase the Wiki-links in the (faint) hope that something may be better-explained in another article. It needs a complete re-write. Just having Wiki-links without explanation is circular. Puzl bustr (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Made references standard inline
I cleaned up the two refs given in the article. But it could do with more refs, and re-writing to be more NPOV, e.g. remove the "Let's start with". I'm definitely NOT an expert on this, just interested in the subject. Puzl bustr (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)