Talk:Neutron magnetic moment/GA1

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

Reviewer: QEDK (talk · contribs) 15:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, 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):
 * 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:

-- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fix up all and  tags. Also add, refs to the section. -- QEDK  ♠  T  ♥  C  15:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, remove the double spaces. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  15:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! I've included a few of the required references.  I'll have to think about the "Thirty Years" section a bit - perhaps it is just a matter of including a few new references and moving some of the other references (Pais in particular) up so that they appear earlier.  I thought that section was o.k.   I explicitly looked into the question of double spaces recently (I am old school and go for the double spaces).  My understanding is that the style is left up to the editor, and the double spaces do not appear in the document anyways after browser processing.  Perhaps  some of our regular editors (there are not many) might comment on these questions.   Bdushaw (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I know they don't. I was using VE and it showed up there, so I thought they were replicated onto the main article too. My bad. Also, the section headers are summarizing the contents in the paras inside them. Could you make them more concise? "Thirty years in the theoretical wilderness" and "Magnetic moment, quarks, and the Standard Model" aren't really correlated. Sounds more like dramatic theoretical physics book headings. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  18:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One of the things I've been thinking about in writing articles like this, is how to bring a discussion down to earth/make it simple when there are likely no citations to support the simplified statement. A simple example is "...neutrons behave as small magnets..." - one will not be able to find a citation for that specific statement, but that is what "magnetic dipole moment" means.  One could argue that's original research, but...  Another example (now with a generic citation) is that the negative gamma implies a direction of precession in a magnetic field - that's what gamma means by definition; gamma is defined in the context of Larmour precession.  I translated that meaning into a specific statement as to what happens.  OR?  Perhaps, but the article is better for the low-level translation, seems to me.  The section "Thirty Years" is perhaps a more complicated example.  The Pais book gives a brief discussion, roughly from which I have elaborated that meaning into the discussion in the section now (with an eye on the Drell and Zachariasen article) - the section consists of essentially two parts, (1) the EM loop correction (works spectacularly), then (2) the meson loop correction (which doesn't work).  The section touches on some extraordinarily complicated, advanced technical material.  One likes to have citations for everything, but realistically sometimes the rules have to be bent a little bit to make an article work better.  Even the selection of what material to include in an article could be construed as OR, if not adopting a POV.  I am making no argument here; no decisions made, just what I am thinking about in formulating a constructive reply to the suggestions.  It can be sticky business translating technical material into an encyclopedia article!  Bdushaw (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * RE spaces. An editor recently made these changes to the neutron article.  Which produced this exchange.  Until I noted this, I had thought double spaces were the norm (I am not likely to change; double spaces are in my genes now...)  Bdushaw (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To be specific about the nature of the "Thirty Years" section, the citation to Pais, Inward Bound, has this sentence: "While through the years the radiative corrections to the electron moment have proved successful at least to order alpha^4, the corresponding meson calculations were already in 1949 a flop to order g^2." (page 483).  The section in question is essentially elaborating on what this sentence means.  The EM discussion/calculation was taken from the QED article (if I recall correctly).  Loop diagrams of mesons and nuclei are given in the cited references, e.g., Bjorken and Drell, or Drell and Zachariasen.  I thought about starting the section off with the above quotation, but that would likely be just gibberish to most readers.  Anyways, this is the origin and gist of the section - O.R.?   I was trying to translate that sentence into a form that wikipedians might be able to make some sense of.  Perhaps it just needs a bit of rearranging and some additional citation support.   Bdushaw (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Anything that is attributable is allowed. Even ones which aren't attributed (i.e. inline cited) but are attributable are perfectly fine. Another thing is that most simple statements can be referenced. Most, like "...neutrons behave as small magnets..." can be cited. I looked up (just tried to check if you were trying to reinforce a point or state an example) and the 3rd link in Google states exactly this (this is me, not reinforcing a point but stating an example). I get the issue here and realize the most of this OR are basic attributable facts. And hence allowed, good for you! :) -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  15:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for these late replies. I had my school fest ongoing, so I was hell tired after all that dancing and screwing around. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  07:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Checklist
In addition look for:


 * Short choppy sentences. [X]
 * Short choppy paragraphs. [X]
 * Contractions: don't, won't, haven't, wouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't. [X]
 * make sure all title headings are correctly capitalized [X]
 * The lead should adequately summarize the content of the article. (GA criteria) [X]
 * There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. (GA criteria). [X]
 * External links only belong in the External links section. [X]
 * It is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences. [X]
 * Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections. [X]
 * All fair-use images need a fair use rationale. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Images need succinct captions. (GA criteria) [X]
 * An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Statements that are likely to be challenged and statistics need inline citations. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Book references need the author, publishing date and page number. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Book references preferably should include the publisher, city of publication and ISBN. [X]
 * Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources, unless written by the subject of the article or by an expert on the subject. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Dead web references should not be removed, unless replaced. [X]
 * Inline citations belong immediately after punctuation marks. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Portal links belong in the "See also" section. (GA criteria) [X]
 * "Further info" links belong at the top of sections. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose or their own article. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Lists within prose should be avoided. (GA criteria) [X]
 * En dashes are used for ranges, unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes are used for punctuation. [X]
 * Sentences should not start with a numeral. The sentence should be recast or the number should be spelled out. [X]
 * Only the first word in a section heading needs a capital letter (except in proper nouns).
 * Short sections and paragraphs are discouraged. (GA criteria) [X]
 * "While" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link. [X]
 * The words "current", "recent" & "to date" should be avoided as they become outdated. (GA criteria) [X]
 * Avoid using "not", eg. "songs previously not heard" → "songs previously unheard" [X]
 * Avoid contractions, such as can’t, he's or they're. [X]
 * Avoid Weasel Words, such as "it is believed that", "is widely regarded as", "some have claimed". (GA criteria) [X]
 * Avoid Peacock Terms, such as "beautiful", "famous", "popular", "well-known", "significant", "important" and "obvious". (GA criteria) [X]
 * Avoid informal words, such as "carry out", "pub", "though", "tremendous" and "bigger". [X]
 * Avoid vague words, such as "various", "many", "several", "long", "a number of", "just", "very" and "almost". [X]
 * Avoid using the words "circa", "utilise", "whilst", "upon", "commence", "the majority of", "lack", "whereas", "generate", "due to the fact that" and "prior to". [X]
 * Avoid phrases with redundant words, such as "is located in", "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "near to the town", "available records show", "to help limit the chance", "Christian church", "in order to", "first began", "joined together", "future plans" and "in the year 2007". [X]


 * From this list, and other discussions, remaining ToDos are: develop lede, access dates for web links, publisher locations for books, page numbers for books (which I don't have).  I think the grammatical problems have been fixed (yes?).  Need to add the new references to first principles calculations of magnetic moments.  Uncertain of where we stand with O.R. in meson physics section; are we ok there now?  I may work on these over the weekend.  Bdushaw (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * While no article is ever done, I've run out of things on the check list to fix! How do we stand WRT GA status at the moment?  Happy to address any additional concerns.  Bdushaw (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref. 28 and 29 seem to be the only ones unfixed. I would suggest you either try a bit harder or we can leave it just like that. There was one ref where you missed . I've fixed it. I love the work you've done. Trust me, you were really hardworking. The article is almost flawless. I say almost because as you said, no article is ever done. ;) -- QEDK  ♠  T  ♥  C  07:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look at refs 28 and 29 - not sure what is incorrect about 28. I've added page numbers to 29 (to the first chapter; the whole book is really about that statement in the article), and corrected the publisher (found the first few pages on amazon) and other nuances.  Thanks for the kind words.  Its been an education on bringing this article up to snuff.  I was going to put Discovery of the neutron up for GA review, but now I will work on it some more, now knowing what is required.Bdushaw (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You might consider checking out my GA review script. It has everything that is needed. I copied it off someone else's, don't remember who. This article's good to go. Aaaand, welcome. :) -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  16:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)