Wikipedia:Peer review/Electron/archive2

Electron

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Following the previous PR, this article gained GA status then failed a FAC. All of the issues raised during the FAC have been addressed, so I would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look at this article and see if anything else needs to be addressed. Thank you for your helpful input!&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

'''Comments from User:TechOutsider


 * Nothing major; may want to follow suggestions given by the semi-automated review. Edited a couple of wikilinks to avoid redirects. TechOutsider (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to expand the Etymology section, if you wish to shoot for FA-C. Or combine it with the History section. The lead of the section headed Plasma applications needs to be expanded; a paragraph will do. Alternatively, just remove the currently present sentence. TechOutsider (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I removed the one-liner from the Plasma applications section. Please could you clarify why the etymology section needs expansion? It seems to cover the topic sufficiently. What would you propose for an addition?&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is well written. Shoot for FAC, why not? Even if you fail, you probably will get more suggestions than I can ever provide you. I will continue to take a look at the article.

Ruhrfisch comments: This seems pretty much ready for FAC to me: well written, nice illustrations, good refs. Here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead does a nice job summarizing the article. My personal preference is that a lead does not generally need refs, becasue it is a summary - only direct quotations and extraordinary claims need refs in the lead. It is fine with the MOS if the lead does have refs, but the refs here seem sort of hit or miss - the fourth paragraph has no refs, for example. I would try to be consistent with refs in the lead, either cite it like every other paragraph or just cite direct quotes and extraordinary claims. As it is, I am not sure why chemical bonding needs a cite, but Hawking radiation does not (as one example).
 * Thank you. Mmm, yes well I've tried to follow WP:LEADCITE on this one. Everybody seems to have a different opinion on the matter. It started out well-sourced, but that made people unhappy so I culled it way back. Frankly it just doesn't seem especially important to me. :) There are citations for everything in the article; if somebody challenges a fact in the lead then I'll replicate the citation as needed. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The actual coining of the name "electron" is reported in the history section. I am OK with the current organization, but it does seem as if the current Etymology section is a sort of "prehistory" of the electron - could it be merged with the History section?
 * That seems like a common preference, so I've merged them together.
 * The MOS suggests blockquotes be used for quotations of 4 lines or longer - the quote from Stoney on the name is only 1 line on my browser.
 * Okay I merged it back in the text.
 * In atomic theory I would mention the Stern–Gerlach experiment on the electron's spin and quantum nature.
 * At the time, the Stern–Gerlach experiment was not seen as evidence for the existence of electron spin. So I think I'll just link it in the "See also" section. Sorry.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Would it make sense to call the current Atom section "Atoms and molecules"?
 * Yes it would.
 * Also there is a lot of material in the Atom section about two electrons per two atoms, to make a bond, but I think electron delocalization should be mentioned here, such as aromatic systems (benzene) (delocalization is mentioned later with band theory)
 * Any reason why this ref is not at the end of the sentence - it is the only ref for the whole paragraph: These electrons are not associated with specific atoms, so when an electric field is applied, they are free to move like a gas (called Fermi gas)[107] through the material.
 * No reason, other than it is particular to the name Fermi gas.
 * The paragraph on cosmic rays in Formation that starts with Cosmic rays are particles traveling through space with high energies does not explicitly mention electrons - the average reader might have bailed at this point anyway, but try to make sure each paragraph helps focus on the subject at hand
 * The paragraph is pertaining to the particles that are generated by cosmic rays, which results in the formation of electrons.
 * It seems as if the Notes should have references too.
 * Thanks for the useful feedback.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)