Talk:Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments/GA2

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

GA On Hold
This article is generally very good. It's well referenced and has a very balanced POV on a subject where neutrality could be difficult to maintain. There are however a few changes I feel need to take place.

In general, the article explains the science very well but I think both strange matter and Hawking radiation are both terms that could use a very brief explanation in article in reference to the context they are being used in. So for Hawking radiation, explain about how it decays black holes and explain what strange matter is in the context of strangelets. Further, I had to read the direct quote from the safety report on the LHC in the micro-blackhole section 3 times before I understood that it was saying that cosmic-ray collisons with neutron stars or white dwarves would create micro-blackholes that would remain on these stars in the same way a micro-blackhole created by the LHC would remian on earth, but since neutron stars and white dwarves still exist they can not be dangerous. Therefore I think this quote should be written out differently so it is easier to understand.

I also feel that the article should have a section specifically on how the media covered the safety of LHC, since alot of public concern about it's safety would have been strongly influenced by the media and the fact that the media is listed as one of the bodies in the lead of the article raising concerns over the safety of the LHC. Therefore I think the third paragraph of the safety concerns section should be turned into a subsection, and expanded upon. This should include comments on how the media covered the safety issues. Was the media often biased towards the reporting only of the dangers of the LHC? Or did the major media outlets stress the research that had occured to deem the LHC safe (which I know for example the BBC did).

This article will be watched for seven days whilst these changes are made. If no imporvment is made after seven days the article may be failed without notice. If you have any questions or comments please ask me here or on my talk page. Good luck! Million_Moments (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been requested a few more days be allowed to make the changes in the article. This is fine, good luck! Million_Moments (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressing GA suggestions
Thank you for your careful review. I will try to address the points you raised. I must admit, at first glance, that I'm not sure how to go about detailing the media reactions to the safety issues. Specifically, I will have to be very careful to avoid WP:SYN and WP:NOR issues. Any suggestions? Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All I am look for is a few statements along the lines of "The major media broadcasters *inster two or three names here* had siginificant coverage of the launch of the LHC and it's safety concerns, but their coverage also included the fact that safety reports had deemed safe*add refs here to news articles* where as *insert names here* only covered the doomsday scenerios of the device*insert refs here*" That way all you are doing is describing the news coverage of specific broadcastersand not generalising which could be construed as original research. This may sound odd but alternatively you could write a section like the critical responce sections of articles on television episodes or books. See Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), a featured article, which has a good critical responce section. In this instance you could write it is The Times reported that "many people feared the end of the world on wednesday" but pointed out "through safety reviews had found the LHC to be safe." John Smith from The Independent called for "a delay in the experiment whilst safety issues were re-examined". Obviously I just made that up...

Does that help? Million_Moments (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very helpful. --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi I came across this review and noticed that there was a request for info from the media. So I have put something together below. Obviously the citations need formatting but I am too busy for that, and it is a lot of info so it might need to be cut a bit? Also, it needs to be made to flow better of course (and the internal links might not all be pointed to the right places, but again I've had no time to check), but I think it might be useful for you guys as a start? If not, never mind. Anyway here it is:


 * CNN mentioned that "Some have expressed fears that the project could lead to the Earth's demise", but it assured its readers with comments from scientists like John Huth, who said that it was "baloney". It also mentioned a report by physicists stating that the there isn't a risk to the collidor, but it did say that the report was not done "independently".


 * MSNBC said that, "there are more serious things to worry about, ranging from the monster hurricane slamming the Gulf Coast to the chances of a killer asteroid heading our way (estimated background risk: 1 in 500,000 for any given year)." It also allayed fears that "the atom-smasher might set off earthquakes or other dangerous rumblings". The results of an online survey it conducted "indicate that a lot of [the public] know enough not to panic". According to Alan Boyle, "The strange case of the planet-eating black hole serves as just one example showing how grand scientific projects can lead to a collision between science fiction and science fact."


 * The BBC said, "the scientific consensus appears to be on the side of Cern's theorists" who say the LHC has "no conceivable danger". It also recruited the services of physicist  Brian Cox who maintained, "The LHC has absolutely no chance of destroying anything bigger than a few protons, let alone the Earth." He went on to call the safety concerns "symptomatic of a larger mistrust in science".


 * The Sydney Morning Herald reported that, "the end of the world will not happen on Wednesday, for the simple reason that the LHC will not generate any collisions that day. It also stated that reports were commisioned to check that "such risks are, by any reasonable thinking, impossible".


 * The Times told its readers to "cancel your plans for next Wednesday, it could be your last day on Earth" but then went on to say that the "doomsayers...were challenged by a report from the scientists behind the project outlining just how safe it is".


 * The Guardian opened an article with "Mankind is either at the beginning of a great era of discovery, or it's the end of the world." It said "The claims have been dismissed by the courts" but did say that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction."


 * The Associated Press quoted CERN chief spokesman James Gillies, who called the concerns "nonsense".


 * According to Time, the public had no need to be scared, saying that "even if tiny black holes were to be formed at CERN — a big if — they would evaporate almost instantaneously due to Hawking Radiation".


 * The Independent reported that, "Few if any sensible scientists believe that these minuscule black holes pose any threat, for instance by merging into a bigger black hole that could swallow up Geneva."


 * Brian Greene in the New York Times reassured readers by saying,"If a black hole is produced under Geneva, might it swallow Switzerland and continue on a ravenous rampage until the earth is devoured? It’s a reasonable question with a definite answer: no."


 * The tabloids were less sympathetic to the CERN scientists, with the Daily Mail producing headlines such as "End of the world postponed as broken Hadron Collider out of commission until the spring" and "Are we all going to die next Wednesday?"  The Sun gave more time to Rossler with a quote from him saying for instance, "The weather will change completely, wiping out life. There will be a Biblical Armageddon." After the launch of the collidor, it even had a story entitled, "Success! The world hasn't ended".


 * That is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for, but your right there is alot there and I would say that bnot all of the media outlets who reported a balanced view need to be included. Million_Moments (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it should be a start for you guys. It was hard writing it without repeating the same sort of language. Btw, is there any reason why this article is at Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider when it could be at Safety of the Large Hadron Collider, which right now is a redirect to here? (And sorry for not signing above). Deamon138 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Deamon138, I want to thank you for this detailed news source info! I really appreciate it. I should get around to addressing the GA recommendations with weekend. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. This is what a Wiki is all about! Deamon138 (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Million Moments,


 * I expanded the information on strange matter and hawking radiation. Is that clear enough?


 * Also, is the Neutron star argument clearer now?

Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added the above media info in the article, but I'm not sure which sources to cut. Also, the section has to be rewritten to flow properly. I'll be back tomorrow to finish this up.


 * I think I might cut out a few things as it is a little long. Million_Moments (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I appreciate the work that went into the new section but it seems to me that it is way overblown. There have been hundreds of articles on the end-of-the-world issue in both serious and less-serious media outlets, and just quoting a bunch of them - mostly variations on the same concept that we repeat again and again in the article - does not IMHO bring any useful information to the reader. I would rather prefer something on the lines of what the referee proposed first, i.e. something like The major media broadcasters had significant coverage of the launch of the LHC and its safety concerns, but their coverage also stressed the fact that safety reports had deemed the collider safe, whereas the tabloids chose to improve their sales by fanning the mass hysteria on the doomsday scenarios (ok, perhaps something less polemic). This at least conveys a useful piece of information on the different approaches chosen by the media. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the conversation above, you'll see this had to be avoided as it would technically be original research unless we could locate a reference that stated it. A bunch being quoted allows the reader to form their own opinion. Million_Moments (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean that the quotes help forming the readers' opinion on the quality of the media coverage itself I can agree, but even in that case the section is way oversized w.r.t. its importance in the context of the article. I think it would be enough to give one or two examples of the different tones (serious newspapers vs tabloids). In the present version it looks like we want to give an exhaustive review of the media coverage, which would be at the same time hopeless and useless. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the media section look better now? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, very much so. One ref missing and I shifted some of the references as I am fussy about having them after direct quotes. Add that ref for me and I will read through the whole article later today if I can. Million_Moments (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass
Alot of hard work has been put into this article and I am very happy to say it is now a good article! The science is very well explained, the article is neutral and broad in it's coverage and well referenced. It'd be alot of fiddly work, but one way to perhaps imporve the article would be to use the cite news template that will format the news story references nicely. The article is getting long, and it's possible the lead may need to be expanded pretty soon. Apart from keeping the article up to date with the latest news, nothing else comes to mind for me! Well done and keep up the good work! Million_Moments (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your careful review and excellent suggestions. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)