Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Force/1

Force

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. If some of these citations are inaccurate as RockMagnetist suggests, this is worrying and would probably be sufficient grounds for future delisting; I'd recommend that these citations be checked by editors familiar with the subject. But there still seems to be doubt here, discussion has stalled, and there's no consensus to delist. Khazar2 (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't read that easy. References are not setup properly with multiple sources in one reference that is cited over and over. This article needs to be rewritten entirely while viewing and fixing the sources for accuracy. The main problem is that there are multiple citations in one reference being used.Cky2250 (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the frequently cited reference is The Feynman Lectures on Physics, I think this is excusable. And there are plenty of other sources cited too. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that the sources are bad but that format in which they are cited is. A lot has changed since 2008, so I believe a full view of the article should be done before it is given a good status again.Cky2250 (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what things like "it doesn't read that easy" means. Specific recommendations can be dealt with. As for the claim that there is a problem citing "one reference", I don't think that's true in this case. The reference being cited is top-notch. There's no reason to cite any others as far as I can tell. If the claim is that the "format in which they are cited is [bad]," well, I'm not sure I know what the appropriate "format" being requested is. More clarity on what the problems are would help me understand the concerns. jps (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A list of specific issues cross-referenced to the good article assessment criteria would be a big help. Note that WP:GAR (point 3) says explicitly that inconsistently formatted citations are not grounds for de-listing. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are getting what I am saying. There are 2 books being referenced within the same "ref". Multiple times. They are separate books. That is one problem bad citation, it isn't the format it is that it is bad. Second thing is that equations and explanations do not read easily. How would something be rated good when it has incorrect information, and citation.Cky2250 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand either. What's wrong with 2 books being referenced within the same ref? Secondly, what is incorrect and what don't you find easy to read? jps (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a problem with those references. First, twenty six statements are attributed to the same two pages in Kleppner and Kolenkow. I can't access the pages online, but – if those pages really support all of those statements, either they are remarkably dense pages or there is a lot of repetition in this article. The citation of Feynman has the opposite problem - no page numbers at all. I would say the citations don't satisfy WP:BURDEN: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." RockMagnetist (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case where the {{rp}} template will really help. I have split the two citations and started to implement that. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to get the impression that these two books are frequently used in Hail Mary cites, where an editor seemed to hope the subject was discussed somewhere in these volumes, or at least that it would satisfy reviewers. I discuss an example in Talk:Force#Feynman didn't say that, but there are several other dubious cites. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think improving the references of this article is an admirable goal, and I would encourage those who are concerned about the subject to do this. Most of the material in this article is so elementary that finding a source is about as difficult as putting the statement into google. jps (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of work that can and should be done here. Reference formatting is inconsistent and in some places flatly incorrect. I'd like to see some of the explanatory notes pull out into a different section than the reference/bibliographic notes for readability. And, sure, there's some work to be done on the prose. This isn't a FA-level article, but this isn't FAC/FAR, and I can't see where anything has been claimed to fall short of the GA criteria here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: This GAR was closed last November - see the top of this section. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]