Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control

Importance assessment of Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment article
I've been working with relatively new editor @ Leptonsandquarks on the DUNE experiment article, and we have a question about its importance, currently assessed as Mid: does this subject qualify as High importance? Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Our quality scale is somewhat lacking in detail, but I think "Mid" is about right for now for a project that isn't due to start taking data for ten years. PianoDan (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Also, the DUNE proposal is on par with the International Linear Collider proposal which is classified Mid. Both are experiencing delays related to funding uncertainties. Thanks for your speedy response! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Another question: to what extent are importance assessments influenced by the P5 recommendations, if at all? I was just surprised to see the criterion under Importance scale, "Important or famous. Something an undergraduate physics major could have heard of or studied." So, are we going for what might be considered important for WP readers, rather than the discipline's perceptions of importance? Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's right, although I'm speaking strictly for myself. I think the rating should reflect "how important does the WP physics editing community think this is for WP readers," not "how important does the particle physics community think this is for particle physics."  The two are hopefully somewhat correlated, of course. :) PianoDan (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi,Thank you for this discussion. I have learned a lot from this.  I think the present "mid" rating makes sense because, as you say, it is important for only a segment of the physics community and should be seen as on the same level as the international linear collider.   I appreciate your consideration of this! Leptonsandquarks (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Re-evaluate quantum field theory
Apologies if this is the wrong place to post. Quantum field theory was entirely rewritten in 2018 following the discovery of plagiarism. The quality has certainly improved, but the quality rating remains at C. What is the process to have its rating re-assessed? Yinweichen (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I used Rater to reassess the quality, which predicted a "B" rating, with 80.5% confidence. Nice work! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Would it be worth going through a GA review process? Yinweichen (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, go for it! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of decay energies from isotope pages?
I believe this has happened over the last few years and my understanding is that this was some sort of consensus decision, but can someone point me towards the page where this was decided or give me the rundown on why decay energies were removed from isotope pages?

For example, in Isotopes of uranium no decay energies are given in any of the tables. Some of the specific sections for certain isotopes contain this information, but being as part of paragraphs and not in a table, it's a pain to find. Isotopes of americium is slightly better as some of the specific isotope sections have tables with this info, but many are still missing.

The removal of this info makes very little sense to me. Kylesenior (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Re-assess F D C Willard
I like the story as much as the next guy, but I have a hard time seeing how a cat rates as a mid-importance article. 138.234.75.76 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Johnjbarton (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The shape of the atomic nucleus
An article with the above title has just gone live and is in need of assessment. Urayness (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)