Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of baryons


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:52, 1 July 2008.

List of baryons
previous FLC (04:49, 30 May 2008)

Renomination (self nomination): I believe I have addressed all the concerns of the previous FLC, which were mainly referencing issues, visual appearance issues, and thoroughness of some explanations. The only exception is that Crzycheetah still experiences a long scroll bar due to some templates (which have been identified, but there's no work around that I know of). I've contacted the author of the templates, and had no reply from him in a month. I've contacted the Village pump and no one even gave a comment. I've tried multiple things and none of them worked. Since this is IMO, a minor visual annoyance that seems to be exclusive to Crzycheetah (I tried at least 10 different computers with different OS and different browsers), and that I gave it my best try, I am resubmitting the list of baryons. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * That is one really long signature you have (over a dozen lines!)
 * Remove bold from linked text or links from bold text per WP:LEAD.

Gary King ( talk ) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to User:Gary King:
 * But the bold is there because of WP:LEAD...
 * Yeah I noticed my sig was incredibly massive. I'm trying to find a better way to do things. Headbomb16:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * More specifically, per WP:BOLDTITLE, "Avoid links in the bold title words." Gary King ( talk ) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Headbomb19:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support This article looks good now. Gary King ( talk ) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * Any reason why triquarks is in italics? Seems unique.
 * "Spin, orbital angular momentum, and total angular momentum" remove space before the second comma.
 * Refs [4] and [5] need to be the other side of the full stop.
 * First image in isospin section has a full stop in the caption - not needed as it's a fragment.
 * "this wasn't known" was not - avoid contractions.
 * "anti-quark" or "anti quark" - consistency required.
 * Remove spaces between Particle name and reference in the table.
 * Use proper notes in the table rather than your own version.
 * "The specific values of the name hasn't been decided yet. Will probably end up to something close to Σb(5810)" avoid contractions, second sentence should be written as English, add a full stop at the end and avoid phrases like "end up to something close to..." - non-encyclopaedic.
 * "Some controversy exists about this data. See references" Specifically which references?
 * "Charmed Theta" should be "charmed Theta" for consistency with the rest of the table.
 * For web references, best to use cite web and fill in as many parameters as possible, such as,  ,   etc.
 * First and last non-specific references appear to use a hyphen to separate page ranges (if that's what they are) rather than the en-dash.
 * Further reading can also use the cite web template.
 * Isn't category:Particle physics a sub-category of category:Physics? If so you can axe the latter cat.


 * I've implemented most of them now.
 * Any idea about how to handles notes automatically? If I use doesn't look like it's using the template to me...! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look into the List of Governors of Ohio later today.
 * These refs were done like this on purpose. The reason is all these refs are actually the same document, but the Particle Data Group chopped it up in these sections for the online version so you don't have to download a 1200 page PDF everytime. The "true" ref is Yao et al. (2006) (with the full ref given below). The link is given as a convenience, not as a "citation". Dunno if that made sense.
 * Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, understood. Not a huge deal, just a little confusing.  You could manually add accessdate style text to make it appear like a cite web...?  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * * Yeah, I guess I could. I'll think of something. Again that'll happen later today. I also noticed that probably needs to be reformated into something cuter for the short ref version, and put in the "full reference" section . Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed everything you've listed. Hopefully this was everything, but if you have anything else that makes you iffy about placing a bold support, someone on this page, go ahead and mention it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Very nice list! Some minor things: In the parity section you write the wavefunction as |psi(x)> but the wavefunction is, of course, the complex number , which you should call psi(x). If you consider the given function of x as an element of Hilbert space then you could still denote that function by a Dirac ket, but then the argument x should not be used in the ket (an argument in the ket, like a time variable, means that for every value of that argument you have some different element of Hilber space). So, I would just replace the Dirac ket by psi(x).

It would be nice if you could show how isospin symmetry of strong interactions explains certain branching ratios in strong decays. So, you give an example of some particle X that decays into another particle Y. You apply a ladder operator on both sides and then X becomes some other particle but Y becomes some linear combination of two other particles, the absolute value squares of the amplitudes are the relative decay probabilities. This kind of argument is very easy to follow for people who know only the very basics of quantum mechanics but haven't seen any complicated particle physics stuff yet. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right about the ket thing, and I've changed it. It was an abuse of notation on my part (bad Headbomb, bad baaaaaaad Headbomb).
 * As for the isospin symmetry explaining the branching ratios, I don't know anything about that. I've fiddled around with the ladder operators, but only to check if my wavefunctions were consistent, and to "crack" what the hell was isospin. I've been thinking of adding a decay section, but I think that would be more appropriate for an article on decay, or perhaps for the baryon article (which needs a lot of work), as that is not required to make sense of the list of baryons.
 * Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to comment much on this one because I feel that to support or oppose something that is far beyond my comprehension is unfair. However, the opening sentence, "This is a list of known and predicted baryons." is rather uninspiring. Something more engaging should be used to interest the reader, rather than a copy of the article title. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I wrote it with non-experts in mind. Two months ago I didn't know one thing about baryons other than there were made of "three quarks". I wrote the list as a way to understand what there were, what made them tick etc... Being a n00b at baryons allowed me to write the explanations from the perspective of a guy who didn't "get it" until a minute ago, so can see why someone is confused by the usual explanations. I can't say that you'll get everything in a quick read, but you'll certainly "get it" a lot more than if you read any of the reference provided. If I did my job right, you should never feel lost, even in a quick read, and while you might not "get" why something is important (parity comes to mind, since it's just something that some info about the shape of the wavefunction), sitting there and reading things carefully should make nod along the way, rather than pull your hair and wonder if I'm speaking in Swahili. It's surprisingly not that complicated and I'm really pissed at the authors of particle physics textbooks to explain things in ways that are completely unhelpful which make it sound much more complicated than it really is.I've had the list reviewed by many particles physicists (at least 4), both on wiki and outside of wiki, so I wouldn't be too worried about factual accuracy if I were you. I can guarantee you the lists themselves are complete, accurate, and up to date as I took great care to find a reference for absolutely everything that is written in those lists. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Well it's 12.30am right now so I don't want to read it while I'm feeling tired! I'll do it in the morning after some sleep! :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool beans. If you come up with a better intro line, don't be afraid to mention it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You could just axe the first sentence entirely. It adds virtually nothing that isn't in the title of the list and in the remainder of the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, it's slashed. Not sure it's my preferred version of things, but I can live with it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 11:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sentence is back, but is "detached" from the lead. This should make all of us happier than a kid in candyland. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.