Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive October 2019

Review request for hafnium-tungsten dating
Hi, I (along with my colleague Viranga13) have been working on writing an article for hafnium-tungsten dating. It is now at a stage where, to us, it seems largely complete so we would appreciate some feedback from other editors on whether there is anything that needs adjusting. Since it has been tagged as within the scope of wikiproject: Physics I thought I would ask here. Thanks, Physdragon (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Problems in General Physics
This AfD may be of interest to the community here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also this related one. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Fusion power
Hello. I came across the Fusion power article while checking over a researcher's bio page for New Pages Patrol. The "Fusion power" article has a September 2019 tag for being written as an essay. I checked the history. In 2016 and an editor had tagged it for several issues : "more references", "unsourced predictions (crystal)", a "pro and con list" and one section had NPOV issues,.

In any case, it seems to have some issues, but I am only familiar with this topic and don't have enough expertise to really call out the issues. I am wondering if editors here can have a look. It may not be much improved since 2016. There is another tag in the "History of research" section for needing more references dated March 2016. It also has a "B-class" rating. If there are enough issues then perhaps a "B" is too high. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Given a quick read-through (it is a big article), I don't see major problems. There are citations to over 200 sources and most sections have at least some citations. There are 117 citations in just the "History of research" section itself. My impression is that fusion power is a contentious field with lots of money and strong opinions, so assertions in the article have received a good bit of scrutiny and hence there are some citation-needed tags and some small disputes. But relative to the rest of the article, referencing problems are minor. I disagree with the article-wide essay tag, which was added with no explanation. I would be inclined to remove it. The issues prevent it from GA or A class, but it is a fairly good article; B is about right. -- 09:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the article-wide essay tag, since it didn't seem applicable (certainly not to the page as a whole). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Add a 'Quantum' taskforce
Hi,

The proposal for a 'Quantum' wikiproject was denied with the reason that adding a taskforce for it on this wikiproject would be a better solution. What do you think?

Thank you, Vtomole (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: The denied proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Quantum_mechanics

Dowling-Neven law
I saw this in the new article report and suspect that it is too thinly sourced to be wiki-notable. In addition, the name appears to be not yet established. Thoughts? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's funny how the article talks about the law incorrectly being called "Neven's law" when even the case for that name is weak. I find exactly one article proposing the name "Dowling-Neven Law". Written by - Dowling. And look who wrote the Wikipedia article. Dowling. Nominated for speedy deletion. --mfb (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Multiplicity (statistical mechanics)
Requesting a review of this draft. Should it be accepted? --Worldbruce (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This came up the other day on the math side, funnily enough. As I said there, it's written like an essay and would need cleaning up before it could be suitable as an article. The content appears redundant with diversity index, surprisal, entropy and other existing articles. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I'm the original poster. Let me work on that in the next few days, to see if we can't both make it more directly on-point and perhaps shorten what's there up a bit too. Thermochap (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * A round of the changes that I mentioned above have now been made. Thermochap (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, when will WP:MOSPHYS be promoted to, at least, a rough unofficial guideline? It’s evident that articles with such an ignoble typography (as in Draft:Multiplicity…) shouldn’t be permitted out of the draft space, but AFAIK there is no formal pretext for this restriction. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even aware that WP:MOSPHYS existed. I guess we could just hold an RFC? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)