Talk:Quantum electrodynamics/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I have not the pretence of being an expert in the field, but I have the technical background to follow up the article and see how it copes with Wikipedia quality standards. Reviewer: km5 (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My first impression is that a lot of work needs to be done before the article deserves GA status. Here are my first comments:

Introduction

• the introduction needs some serious clean up. It is currently organized as such: first definition - history - another definition - predictions - third definition.
• the importance of QED does not stand out here
• all facts cited in introduction should be further expanded in subsequent sections or removed. So something has to be done about QED predictions.

History

• most of this section is not dedicated to the history of QED, but to the history of quanta. I think that the first four paragraphs should be removed, and that a focus should be made on what are the historical reasons for creating this new theory? what is the rationale? How does QED fits within the historical scope of quantum fields in general?
• this section should be moved after a section that defines what QED is

Physical interpretation of QED

• before interpretating QED, defining it is in order
• For other interpretations, paths are viewed as non physical: out of scope of this section
• Similar to the paths of nonrelativistic Quantum mechanics: this implies that you are talking about relativistic quantum mechanics. It must be clearly stated beforehand
• According to the path formalism of QED: first explain what this formalism is
• The last paragraph about Feynman has nothing to do in this section. Maybe it should be moved to the history one?

A simple but detailed description of QED, on the lines of Feynman's book

• the title should be shortened and follow the wikipedia recommendations on article titles and headlines. I suggest: Feynman's QED.
• the section should be split into subsections and copy edited

I hope this helps --km5 (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear km5, this helps a lot. The main purpose to get a review like this is that one has editorial lines for a neat improvement of the article. I will take some time in the next days to improve it along the lines you put forward. Thank you!--Pra1998 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Improved significantly the article on the given lines. Any other comment would be really valuable. Thank you a lot for the review.--Pra1998 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pra1998, I can see that many editorial improvements have been made to the first sections of the article, good job. Here are some further comments:

History

Important topics here are lacking sources:

• Further studies by Victor Weisskopf
• a problem already pointed out by Robert Oppenheimer
• the fundamental papers of Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger...
• Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger and Richard Feynman were awarded with a Nobel prize
• Equivalence between these formulations was obtained by Dyson

• History says that, in 1947: watch out for unsupported attributions
• Generally speaking, some pictures and/or historical photographies would enhance readability
• The following two sentences address the same subject and should be put closer together and/or merged: a) Equivalence between these formulations was obtained by Dyson b) but Freeman Dyson later showed that the two approaches were equivalent

Feynman's view of QED

Introduction

• For the sake of clarity, it would be good to explain right away the conventional meaning of straight lines, wavy lines and junctions as you define them. People are not supposed to figure out while reading on.

Processes

• I think this subsection could be replaced by two, to enhance readability. The first part would be called something like Basic construction and the second part Probabilities. For the later maybe you could make use of vector calculus to explain it further
• A diagram showing complex numbers and/or vectors sums would help
• If we call the figure on the right figure 2, the three Feynman diagrams could be refered to as figure 2a, 2b, and 2c within the text

Some comments

• This headline is too vague. Like above, I suggest to replace it with two subsections: Practical calculations and Conclusion(benefits and limitations)

--km5 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear km5, as you can see I have improved the article on the lines you proposed. It is my impression that is largely better that it was at start of GA proposal. I was able to get in touch with a source to get a group photo of Shelter Island Conference that has been a key conference on the way to understand quantum electrodynamics. I have changed one of the figures in the section on "Feynman's view" as the one that was put there was not very satisfactory. Now there is a correspondence between the diagrams and their functions. If you find other weak points it will be really helpful to know on the way to an increasing improvement of this article.--Pra1998 (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

GA status as of June 22

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Dear Pra1998, I have to congratulate you for your big commitment to improve the editorial issues of this otherwise good technical article. We are now not far from our aim, so let us will switch to a more formal and global template for the review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Minor issues remain regarding the prose that is sometimes more suited to a conference than an encyclopedia:

• Sentence to rephrase: Now the theory of QED is based on the assumption...
• Sentence to rephrase: Here is given an example to show how things work.
• Sentence to rephrase: Then we ask, What is the probability...
• Sentence to rephrase: there will be a Feynman diagram which helps us to keep track of them. Clearly there is going to be a lot of computing involved in calculating the resulting probabilities
• Given the addition of subsection Probability amplitudes, the following lines now seem superfluous: a) But there are a number of important detailed changes. The first is... b) The second important change has to do with the probability quantities.
• Sentence to rephrase: How are two arrows added or multiplied?
• Sentence to rephrase: How exactly do we calculate the basic quantities P(A to B) and E (C to D)?

Also:

• History says that, in 1947: you have added a reference: that is a very good thing, however the expression itself is a weasel word and should be removed altogether (but keep the reference!)
• The excellent Shelter Island group photo is really too small
• Given the addition of subsection Probability amplitudes, the following lines now seem superfluous: a) But there are a number of important detailed changes. The first is... b) The second important change has to do with the probability quantities.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is well documented, and the sources are now quite extensive

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

--km5 (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear km5, thank you very much for your flattering judgments about my work. It was a pleasure with such helpful comments by your side that made easier to reach the aim. I think I have addressed also the last issues about the prose. Please, let me know if further improvements are needed.--Pra1998 (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pra1998, we will see my comments regarding prose and style just after the headline Status as of June 22. When they are addressed, the article will hopefully pass the GA review. --km5 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to make some slight editorial changes / moving stuff around. I think this highlights important concepts as renormalization and propagators. Please let me know if you agree and feel free to amend if necessary.--km5 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I think your changes are fine. Indeed, I agree with you that this part of the article is more delicate than others and so improvements are really demanded. The editor that wrote it down tried to be colloquial and so not too much appropriate for an encyclopedia.--Pra1998 (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the link to R. Feynman's photography because unfortunately there is a claim for copyright violation. Also a few references are still missing in some parts of the article, if you can get hold of them it would be great:

• In time this problem was "fixed" by Feynman and others (Mass renormalization)
• But Feynman himself remained unhappy about it calling it a "dippy process" (Mass renormalization)

--km5 (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Feynman'photo is under questioning for copyright. So, I have found a better historical photo with two protagonists. It is really regretful that on Wikipedia we have no useful photo about Feynman and I have no possible way out at hand. Finally, I fixed the reference problems you put out. "hocus pocus" and "dippy process" belong to the same sentence in Feynman's book at page 128. The other sentence is just a repetition about renormalization, nothing more.--Pra1998 (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

GA status as of June 24

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

For further improvements beyond GA I suggest to submit this article to a Peer Review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

--km5 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)