Wikipedia:Peer review/Mass–energy equivalence/archive1

Mass–energy equivalence


I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone a major rewrite and rearrangement. I am a physicist, but am prone to mistakes and oversights, like any human, so I would like to get the community's comments on what the article does well, what it is missing, and what can be done better. Unfortunately, the entire article needs to be reviewed as major changes were made to every part of it. Many parts of the article before read like an essay or textbook and were missing references. I put a great deal of work into bringing it up to standards and would like to know how it can be made better.

Thanks, Footlessmouse (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll give this a try. Physics background: I passed an intro physics course in university decades ago. Am not able to confirm accuracy of content, but was able to understand with slow reading. I focused on MOS compliance and readability nitpicks. Did not look at source formatting, but could do so if desired. Hope these comments are useful; consider them suggestions–I will not be offended if you disagree with anything. As a general comment, the article needs more thorough referencing – every uncited paragraph needs a citation (else this will have problems passing a GA review). Esculenta (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead
 * possibly useful links: constant; momentum; product;
 * "3×108 m/s" perhaps the first time this appears the units should be made explicit: metres/second (m/s)
 * "the formula implies that a small amount of rest mass corresponds a very large amount of energy,[1]" Is it necessary to cite this in the lead? Is it controversial?
 * "i.e." - per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, loanwords such as i.e. do not require italicization; I think i.e. is typically followed by a comma (check two occurrences in lead)
 * "The principle implies" which principle? If this is the principle of relativity, please state explicitly.
 * "divided by the speed of light squared; and for a body or system" punctuation error that could be fixed by removing "and".

Description
 * link acceleration
 * "Mass–energy equivalence states that all massive objects have intrinsic energy in the form of mass" what’s a massive object (i.e. what’s the threshold)

Mass in Special Relativity
 * SR shouldn’t be capitalized
 * "While modern physics has discarded the conservation of mass" perhaps “While modern physics has discarded the expression "conservation of mass","
 * links: wavelength; proton; neutron; frequency; elementary particles
 * "The first observation testing this prediction was made in 1919.[15]" careful with citations like this: does this source actually say it is the first experiment to do this? It may be better to use a secondary or tertiary source to cite this, and give the original source as a footnote. Check similar instances throughout.

Efficiency
 * links: atomic nuclei; nuclear fission (this term is linked twice in close succession later down); antielectron; neutrino
 * "neutrons in atomic nuclei lose a fraction of their original mass" every real number can be expressed as a fraction of another number. Is this particular instance a tiny fraction?
 * ”proposed by Belavin Polyakov Schwarz and Tyupkin” needs commas
 * what is SU(2)? Special unitary group? (link please, or leave out if not necessary for comprehension here)
 * consider a trim: "It was later shown that the process occurs rapidly at very high temperatures, though the temperature required is so high that it would only have been reached shortly after the Big Bang." -> "It was later shown that the process occurs rapidly at extremely high temperatures that would only have been reached shortly after the Big Bang."

Low speed expansion
 * Should low-speed by hyphenated as it is used as a compound adjective?
 * linkS: Parker Solar Probe; relative uncertainty; plutonium; nucleon; spring; iridium; energy of rotation
 * convert 153,454 miles per hour to metric

Applications
 * "Similarly, a stick of dynamite in theory weighs a little bit more than the fragments after the explosion, in this case the mass difference is the energy and heat that is released when the dynamite explodes." I think a semicolon is needed rather than the central comma for proper punctuation.
 * ”Einstein used the Centimeter gram …” unwarranted capitalization

History
 * seems that some short paragraphs could be combined to avoid choppy reading. Avoid starting consecutive sentences with "In year ...".
 * links: ether; Eelectrostatic field; calorimeter; lithium; alpha particle; Geiger counter
 * "Friedrich Hasenöhrl showed in 1904, that electromagnetic" comma not required
 * ”"Does the Inertia of an object Depend Upon Its Energy Content?”” the formatting of the paper is inconsistent with how it is presented in the lead.
 * fix “Einstein his first paper on E = mc2 (1905),”
 * ”Another view, due to Kjell Vøyenli,” tell us who is this (Norwegian physicist?); perhaps use "attributed to" instead of "due to"
 * not sure if Einstein’s quote needs special formatting (i.e., it’s not really that long); see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE for guidance
 * "He could avoid the perpetuum mobile problem" why not express this in English?
 * "express the relation between mass, its latent energy," why is latent energy italicized here?
 * "who assumed its validity and correctness (Gültigkeit)." is mention of the actual German word important?
 * consider combining single-sentence paragraphs together
 * "red shift" (2 words) vs. "blueshift"?
 * "carried out by a two step process" compound adjective needs hyphenation
 * spell out MeV on first-time use
 * "noted that "[s]omehow" are the brackets used to de-capitalize the first letter? If so, be consistent with the format of other quotations.
 * "There are other views on the equations importance" needs possessive apostrophe, or reword
 * "which Meitner had memorized" is this factoid pertinent?
 * image caption a bit awkward: "The popular connection between Einstein, E = mc2, and the atomic bomb was prominently indicated on the cover of Time magazine in July 1946 by the writing of the equation on the mushroom cloud." -> "The popular connection between Einstein, the equation E = mc2, and the atomic bomb was prominently indicated on the cover of Time magazine in July 1946." (I think the reader can figure out the connection)


 * Note Thank you, !! Your review is much appreciated. There are already several physicists who edit the article, we needed a detailed review on what can be done better for styling and MOS, so this was perfect. I have taken almost all of your suggestions. I wikilinked to MeV rather than write it out, because it's awkward. I added citation needed to the questionable statement so that it is marked and we can go back and try to find citation for it. I will need to go back through history to try to make it flow better/combine paragraphs. For the conversion to m/s, see Template:Convert, I have added that in. I added "equivalence" in front of principle the first time it appears in the lead, which should solve any ambiguity. Journal articles should always be quoted, that was a mistake. Thanks again! Let us know if you find any other issues. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)