Wikipedia:Featured article review/ATLAS experiment/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:09, 2 April 2007.

ATLAS experiment

Review commentary

Original author aware. Message left at Physics. LuciferMorgan 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no inline citations and only a few references so it fails 1(c) of the Featured article criteria.

Atomic1609 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned — I'm concerned that the primary editors won't (or are no longer) around to work on this article. Plus, the article has fewer than 50 edits in the last year and a half, so it's going to be quite an interesting development. Once I see some interest, I'll provide some ideas. — Deckill er 13:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails 1c. LuciferMorgan 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it, but I can't do it quickly. I was the largest contributor to the article, and I have a strong interest in keeping it in good shape. However, I have little time for Wikipedia at the moment, and my interests and obligations on Wikipedia are considerably broader than they once were, so I can't fix it immediately. I do hope that nobody is proposing to remove the FA status in the meantime? -- SCZenz 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are reviewed for two weeks until they are placed on FARC, which can last up to a month sometimes. — Deckill er 13:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's not much more to be "reviewed" really, until I (or others) have time to make edits to add sources. Unless you're implying that there's a precise procedural time limit? -- SCZenz 13:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If work is being done, time can be extended. LuciferMorgan 13:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't understand why one would make it a requirement to have a lot of inline citations just for the sake of having a lot of inline citations. In this case a few citations e.g. to the ATLAS manual, is more than enough. This article is about an extremely technical subject and explains it to interested lay persons. This means that 99% of what is written is, from the technical point of view, trivial and there are then no appropriate citations for that.

E.g. when mentioning the Standard Model, it is not appropriate to give an inline citation to original journal articles on this topic. To understand such journal articles requires years of study and it would thus not be helpful as they cannot be used for verifiability purposes by lay persons. Count Iblis 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, it's appropriate to link, paragraph-by-paragraph, to the section of the ATLAS TDR that is applicable to that paragraph. Note also that the article reflects in many cases details that have changed since the TDR was published; it's quite reasonable to expect that those facts be cited in particular. -- SCZenz 09:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm going to try to add some references for basic facts, but this really isn't my field so I won't be able to track down everything that might need a ref. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The article is undercategorized; full biblio info (including publisher and last access date) should be given on web References and footnotes; I corrected one instance per WP:DASH—there may be others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comments not enough references.--Sefringle 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citation sufficiency and formatting (1c). Marskell 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question. Several editors (above) mentioned they would/could do the work, but it hasn't happened. Is this stalled? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an awful lot of uncited hard data in here, and ~~the References are just blue links that need to be expanded.~~ Is anyone working on this? There have been less than a dozen edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I did what I could on referencess and footnotes. Work seems stalled, there are 1a and 1c issues. For example, there is a single-sentence paragraph hanging in Background (which is an unencylopedic section heading): Particles that are produced in accelerators must also be observed, and this is the task of particle detectors. And there are broad statements without attribution: Due to this violation of "naturalness" most particle physicists believe it is possible that the Standard Model will break down at energies beyond the current energy frontier of about one TeV (set at the Tevatron). Also: If the Higgs boson is not discovered by ATLAS, it is expected that another mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking that explains the same phenomena, such as technicolour, will be discovered. There is so little to do to meet FA standards here; it's a shame it hasn't been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Sandy and 1a. This is a subject I am not very familiar with, so I won't be much of a help. The lead is at least a paragraph too long per WP:LEAD, and there are some redundancies, such as "in order" to and "a variety of different", and perhaps "many different".— Deckill er 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.