Wikipedia:Peer review/Geiger–Marsden experiment/archive2

Geiger–Marsden experiment
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have rewritten in substantially and it deserves a good look.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Kurzon (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey there, I'm willing to comment on this and can advise regarding taking it to Good article status. Will begin within a week or so. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * looks like the review is closed by the bot but that doesn't matter, just incase you're not watching this anymore. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just read the old August FA-review and there were some pretty useful suggestions there, I hope you'll consider them in the future especially the ones about getting more strong research sources and broadening the topics. Don't let that dissuade you, since what you're working on here is a Vital article and it will be tough even to get it to GA status which have quite lenient criteria. I commend you for your enthusiasm in improving this tough and neglected area of the 'pedia. I personally think this can reach GA with some work. I'm not that unfamiliar with this topic but have to do some research myself regarding it and wiki-related stuff like scientific citation guidelines. I suggest you read that along with Writing better articles essay and about lead sections. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC) That's it from me then, I can go on if you want me to. Feel free to ping me and this article is on my watchlist too. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Okay, the first noticeable thing is the lead, for such a meduim-sized article, the lead should have two-three paras (WP:LEADLENGTH). This will be a little tough but try to summarise adequately each of the sections. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also glance through Manual of Style/Mathematics. I noticed that you've personally addressed the reader by using "we" from the section "Implications of the plum pudding model" onwards. For that, see Writing style in mathematics from the MOS which tells us how to remedy this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I find that the present state of the article to be not flowing/ordered properly and the section titles not being aptly descriptive or over-descriptive. I propose this rearrangement with at least similar retitling.
 * 1) Background (taken from below)
 * 2) Contemporary theories of atomic structure
 * 3) Implications of the plum pudding model (subsection)
 * 4) The outcome of the experiments -remove this section as it seems to summarise what the rest of the article says. Use its content both for lead and the article
 * 5) Timeline of events retitle to "Timeline of experiments"
 * 6) Background
 * 7) 1908 experiment->Deflection of α-Particles by matter (1908)
 * 8) 1909 experiment->Scattering more than 90 degrees (1909)
 * 9) 1910 experiment->Variation in material, thickness and velocity (1910)
 * 10) Rutherford mathematically models the scattering pattern->Scattering pattern mathematical model
 * 11) 1913 experiment->Laws of Deflection of α Particles (1913)
 * 12) Rutherford determines the nucleus is positively charged->Conclusion that the nucleus is positively charged
 * 13) Legacy
 * This experiment has a deep impact in Nuclear physics, surely the Legacy section needs to be expanded?
 * There also some instance of not-encyclopaedic language, like for instance in the Background section, "...had already received numerous honors for his studies.." (is this sourced?), "..was so impressed that he..". I think this informal tone can be remedied by a significant copy edit by posting at the Guild of Copy-editors