Betaprice
A cupcake for you!
edit
|
Some cupcakes as a welcome! Plaidscientist (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
Welcome!
editHello, Betaprice, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Peer review
editHi Betaprice! Just wanted to let you know that I will be peer reviewing your article.
I am also peer reviewing the other two members of our little group (as I missed one earlier this semester), and will be leaving similar message on their user talk pages so we don't wind up with someone who doesn't get two peer reviews. Maa0519 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Summary: The author wrote his/her article on a physics phenomena known as coupling. They start off by giving a general definition and explaining what coupling is in several subfields of physics. In the following subsections, the author further elaborates the definitions of coupling for various fields of physics, giving equations that govern the phenomena and examples of each.
Major Points: Overall, I think the author did a good job sticking to the main pillars of Wikipedia writing with their article. The article has a neutral point of view and reads like an encyclopedia, and the author’s definitions, explanations and examples helped me understand the topic better. Comparing the page to a similar page in physics, “harmonic oscillator”, the author kept a similar format: giving explanations, formulas, and images as a comprehension aid. One noticeable difference however, was the lack of an infobox. I think the author should consider adding one, but I also see why not to, as coupling falls under numerous fields of physics.
The first sentence of the lead paragraph clearly defines what coupling is in a general sense.That said, I feel like the follow-up sentences don’t quite cover what is in the rest of the article, only mentioning classical mechanics and atomic physics. Adding a few brief sentences here might help. I also noticed “atomic physics” isn’t a subsection in the article, but rather “particle physics…” is, which may be confusing if a reader doesn’t understand how they’re different/similar. Even as a half physics major, I honestly can’t remember if they’re the same thing or different. Lastly, while well written and informative, I don’t think the section on accretion is entirely necessary for the context of this article, as it doesn’t mention coupling. The author might consider mentioning that astrophysical coupling may lead to accretion, with “accretion” hyperlinking to the article devoted to it.
Minor Points: While the author did a good job with this, I think they should consider adding some more hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles throughout the article. For instance, “atomic physics” in the opening section, “component” and “spring” in wave mechanics, and “magnetic field” in chemistry. As a math and physics dual major, I know what these things are, but a normal person may not. I encountered no noticeable grammar or punctuation errors. The sources all looked fine to me, appearing to be textbooks. However, many of them are not fairly recent, which may be a concern on mainspace Wikipedia.