Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Poll

This is a poll I've elaborated to help me coordinate WikiProject Physics, and to get feedback on WikiProject Physics in General. While I would like detailed answers to every question, don't feel obliged to reply to every one of them or to detail your answer more than you feel like. You can also answer part of it today, come in a day or two to answer another part, and so on if you don't feel like spending too much time on this at once.

Please use bullets (*) to identify your answer to each questions, and remember to sign them. ( ~ ). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What are your feelings on the new layout of WikiProject Physics? On transclusions? On tabs?

 * confused I think, that it would be nice to make jargon like transclusions clickable. I did not fing the page on 'project' at all. Do you mean  this page? Also please exlpain if you want answers like in reverse chrono order?, like this one is Petr (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's defined here. Puzl bustr (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice, I like the new participatory character impulsed by Headbomb. It is motivating to see that other users are working on something, and what are they doing. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, though I have not fully studied or digested it.  I am pleased that Headbomb has taken the trouble and the initiative, without expecting to like everything.  I hope the project proves a fertile one. I hope also I will have more in the way of specific suggestions as time passes.  Wwheaton (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice, I think the project page has been more organized now. I have not checked it all out yet, but it looks really cool. The new member page is also very usefull Snailwalker | talk 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice. I don't know how it looked before as I became the participant of this project very nearly, but it feels well. User_talk:Evgeny Kurbatov 14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The old version is here . BTW, I think there is something wrong with your sig. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there something that could be improved concerning the layout?

 * One thing that seems strange to me are the taskforces that haven't been chosen. I think it would be good if there was also ones on Condensed Matter (or two on Hard and Soft), one on High Energy Physics, one on Plasma Physics, one on Nuclear Physics, etc.Chhe (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's mostly because the current taskforces are mostly merged WikiProjects (used to be full-fledged wikiprojects, but there wasn't enough participation). I do plan to create more taskforces over time. High-Energy/Particle/Nuclear would be one of them. Condenser matter would be another one. Possibly one on mechanics and one on atomics & molecular physics. I dunno about plasma physics, seems a bit too narrow, but I'm not entirely closed to the idea. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility to resources
===Do you feel that all the resources you need to contribute to WikiProject Physics and Physics Articles are easily accessible in the various WikiProject Physics pages? What is missing? What could be improved?===

Do you find the current list of participants more useful than the old one?

 * Yes, the new format is more useful since it states clearer the participants role in the wikiproject. The join date is also useful since it indicates how established those participants may be in the wikiproject. Jdrewitt (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Undecided, I don't really see any critical changes or a need to change it. The new list splits the "comments" in two new fields ("role" and "experience"), encouraging participants to tell more about them. There is a new field ("contact"), which currently everybody has filled with "yes" (probably somebody who doesn't want to be contacted will not add his name to the list). And another new field with the date in which the participant joined the project (but that says nothing about the activity of the user). Anyway, making a new list was useful to delete names of the people who was no longer interested. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "contact" section is mostly there so one doesn't get accused of spamming/canvassing/whatever when they are trying to reach the people for "internal" matters (example, this poll). I hate having avoidable problems. I don't expect anyone to put "no", but if they don't want to be contacted, then I won't, and no one will take a dump on me (or anyone else) for sending them a message. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the Projects of the Week initiative?

 * Good idea, obviously that will motivate more participants who are undecided about what to do. Personally, I am focused in my areas of interest, so I don't think it will change a lot for me. But it is very good to bring important things to attention of the rest of the participants. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the importance guidelines are reasonable? Would you change any of them?

 * Institutions have no top institutions but would say, some of the top universities, such as Oxbridge, Princeton, Copenhagen have great importance here, with alumni from Newton to Hawking, Watson and Crick, Feynman, Niels Bohr, the list goes on...I would say Los Alamos also has top importance simply because of its history. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, what could be improved about the Reviewing Cheatsheet?

 * The reviewing cheatsheet is a bit long and could be separated into some separate sections which can be viewed individually. At present the sheet doesn't fit on one page and the user has to scroll down to view everything.  Jdrewitt (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On what frequency do you assess articles (give them class and importance ratings)?

 * Only when I come across an article which either has no assessment or the wrong assessment made. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Never, I have never used this feature, but I think it is good. Maybe I should start doing so. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Occasionally, in a 'batch' when im free for the day. --Venny85 (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seldom, but as I feel more experienced I will probably do more. Wwheaton (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Only when I've made a substantial contribution and feel the quality has improved. I don't currently feel able to judge importance, that sounds like a group decision, though maybe I will have a view on this with more contributions. Puzl bustr (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you go through the cleanup listing once in a while?

 * No, haven't yet. having it in a prominent place to remind me should help. Wwheaton (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, I have a few times, but it's pretty laborious, and seems to be out of date. At the moment I am working on stuff that interests me, which takes me to related links which I clean up when I see a problem. This seems to be a more efficient use of my time. Sometimes I go on a reading spree and do cleanup at a very simple level as I go. Puzl bustr (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

===Do you use the Reviewing Cheatsheet? If not, why not? If it was because you weren't aware it existed, will you start using it now?===


 * I am now aware of its existence and probably will start using it, although possibly not in its current format as it is a bit long and should be separated into some different sections. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * um. Didn't know about it. Probably won't be using it. I have RSI and have to ration myself, plus not the greatest writer, so probably not likely to get any articles up to FA status. I take the view of: see a problem, fix the problem. When I feel I understand the article as a whole I will rate it. I am aware of shortcomings in the articles I've spent lots of time on, sadly, so I only dare upgrade the quality assessment one notch without feedback from other Wikipedians. Puzl bustr (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, what is the "best" feature of WikiProject Physics?

 * the people who contribute to it! Any positive feedback is a big plus to me, though I also like to work at my own pace. Puzl bustr (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, what is the worse problem found within physics articles? How would you go about solving it?
No one argued with me, or reversed the edits. BUT, over the years the matrix equation crept back; The nice example (originaly by Mermin) about red and green particle, forming white, got lost atd atd. Today, it is similar to what it was, when I started, just not wrong about Einstein, any more. So, I did made some lasting contribution, but the audience I had on mind, would be totally lost in the current page. Most of my effort got wasted. Solution would be to contact active authors before major rewrite. May be a second page on the same topic, but on a different level (with math, or conceptual only) should be created. Petr (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  waste I will present an example of what inhibits me from expending lot of energy. Long time ago I edited page on EPR. I corrected the popular misconception, that Einstein was 'wrong' and pointed out that he was first to describe what we today call entaglement. I also moved all matrix equations to a separate page.


 * Incoherence, due to many editors revising one sentence or one paragraph without being familiar with the whole. Dreadfully wrong statements get fixed pretty quick, thankfully.  It would be good to have a core of folks who are truly expert on each article who keep an eye on the thing as a whole, a sort of "article committee".  But I don't see any obvious way to formalize this within the rules of Wikipedia.  Still, I think such informal networks exist in practice. Wwheaton (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * mixed level alot of articles are only relevant to a specific audience. and until you open the article you never know who. we need to find a way to make articles relevant to everybody - from grad-students thinking of taking a course on the subject to high school students at the very least --maayan (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. In science articles in another field I know of one article that was originally accessible to anyone with an interest in the subject. Someone combative changed it drastically, add in highly technical terms (without glosses) from the top down. If Einstein and Heisenberg could write clearly and cogently about the deepest parts of their scientific discoveries it should be possible to find such writing in encyclopedia articles. On the other hand, I do not know what to do with the higher math. It is surely needed, but not something that the average high school student would be able to interpret. For a start we could all make sure that symbols that have an accepted meaning are clearly defined or at least linked (c, h, h-bar, etc.). P0M (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, what is your general impression of WikiProject Physics?

 *  Thanks for putting energy into this. I may sound a bit negative, but it is due to ignorance, mostly. Coordination, which I hope will arise from this effort is important if not crusial. Petr (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's great. I think physics needs to be explained in a non-patronising way, and in a collaborative spirit, so that people can contribute in their own way. If I have a bugbear, it's that the particle physics articles are fairly opaque to me. Some of them seem to be cut-and-paste seminars, Wikified, without any real attempt at explanation. I have a maths background so I understand the problems of explaining something which depends crucially on high-powered maths (I can confuse people with references to Lie groups and algebras as well as the next man) and is counter-intuitive, such as quantum theory. Yet there are many excellent, accessible articles in astrophysics. You don't have to be Richard Feynman to explain stuff clearly. You just have to care about the audience. Puzl bustr (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)