Talk:Delayed-choice quantum eraser/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 22:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on February 20, 2014, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment. There is not a single {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{citation needed}}, or {{clarify}} in the entire body of the text. The difficulty level is such that it should be understandable by an intelligent but non-specialist reader of Scientific American, or maybe a reader of a popular physics book by an author such as Brian Greene or Anthony Zee. We are not gearing the article to be a lowest common denominator production that can be understood without effort by a regular consumer of People or Us magazine. This article is less technical and more understandable than, say, DNA, which is a featured article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I just did a search in edit mode for {{ items and found none of the several faults that you listed. I am not impressed with the quality of the rating. I also find your tone absolutely out of keeping with good Wikipedia spirit. Your words: "wow such fail...much confuse...such tags...so complex...very unstable...not wow." P0M (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

too technical for most readers to understand

The version of 6 february (exluding "Discussion") [1], is that better understandable? DParlevliet (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

added to lede

I have added something to the lede to try to make it possible for the average well-informed reader to see where the experiments are going. A little earlier I changed a couple of scary words in the original lede.

I think it is reasonable to expect that the reader will take it upon himself/herself to learn what the basic experiment is, so I have not tried to sketch that in. I have, however, looked forward a bit to cite a couple of experiments that strengthen Wheeler's position on the nature of what has been called "retrocausality." (Did Wheeler do that to himself?) P0M (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)