User:WeepingBritney/Speed of light prof review

Obviously, this is a Wikipedia article. As such one has to take it with a grain of salt. The many-writers-and-editors paradigm is great in principle, but can lead to uneven results. The present article is no exception.

Quality as Summary of the Topic
The article covers the topic pretty comprehensively, the detail is sufficient and perhaps even a bit excessive, and the article is up to date. The historical development is covered, but very unevenly, with a tendency to try to pick eclectic facts. However, the entire faster-than-light discussion is confusing, often misleading, and a seemingly random collection of facts and myths. Only Cherenkov radiation deserves to be mentioned in this context, and it needs to be made clear that it only arises because of faster-than-c motion in the medium (where c is lower than in vacuum), whereas faster- than-c motion in vacuum is IMPOSSIBLE. The “slow-light” section is covered much to briefly, gives an incorrect impression, and deserves a better exposition.

Quality as a Teaching Aid
Yes, the level is appropriate for undergraduates, even for high school students. The logical sequence of the article is questionable, but this is almost expected from the way that Wikipedia articles grow organically in time. I would recommend the article, as is the case for almost anything in Wikipedia. One has to read these articles always with the idea that this is not the definitive last word on the subject, but that it may take some work (following hyperlinks, going to the cited references, …) to really get the full picture.

Readability
It is quite ok. Most long Wikipedia articles are written in the same style, with a short abstract-like summary at the beginning, then a table of contents, then the main article. This can make it look like certain facts are redundantly presented, and that the flow is uneven. But the summary is for quick glances and fact- finding, whereas the rest of the article is for people who want to get a comprehensive view of the topic. And again, the logical flow suffers from the many authors paradigm. One example: relativistic velocity addition is covered fairly early in the article, whereas the “relativity” section is the last one.

Figures
The figures are mostly pictures, but these are well selected. A nice touch is the inclusion of Roemer’s original art. The figures are clear, but on the other hand this is a topic where not a lot of complicated figures are needed.