Talk:Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 20, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Reviews
edit@Footlessmouse: I think it is better to put the sources you want to preserve here. That way, we neither lose them, have to repeat the work, nor overcrowd the page. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, so there is no need to rush incorporating these into the article. Nerd271 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have integrated all of these back into the article now in prose form. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy to review the article.
Review
editInitial comment
editHi Footlessmouse, I'm concerned about the amount text in the article devoted to the book's numerous reviews (about half the article's text), in comparison with the discussion of the book itself (about a third). I think the reviews section would benefit from being trimmed back a bit, with more information provided about the book's historical context, style, and what existed for physicists and mathematicians before its publication. What do you think? Amitchell125 (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Problems that need to be addressed
edit- Both the lead section and the main text don’t cover the main aspects of the topic, with several sections focusing on other people's opinions of the book (see my unanswered comment above).
- The text could be more concisely written.
- There are external links in the main text of the article.
- The article contains superfluous words that cannot be verified, for example: heavily; very successful; many positive; more than historically influential, etc. etc (see MOS:PUFFERY).
- There is a great deal of quoted text, that could be paraphrased.
- The article needs to be checked for missing wikilinks, many others could be added without the risk if overlinking.
As the article is some way off from being GA, according to criteria 1 and 3, I am failing it. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)