Wikipedia:Peer review/A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS/archive1

A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS

I've put quite a bit quite some work into expanding this article with details, pictures, and background info. I have been toying with the idea of putting it up for featured article status, but first I need to see if anyone who isn't a physicist can read it. All comments welcome! -- SCZenz 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess I don't fit your target audience for this peer review, but I think the intro should make more clear that the reason those theories can't be tested by previous accelerators is because they couldn't make massive enough particles. Right now the two seem disconnected. Also, right now that sentence seems somehow non-grammatical, or at least awkward.

I think it's good that you've kept it on a low technical level, but I felt that many sections were unduly vague. I also think it would benefit from information on what energies it will reach compared to what energies could probe different theories. It might even be a good idea to put together a chart like I've seen somewhere before which color in ranges of energies that various theories would put certain particles with a big line through where the detector can get.

On the front of vague statements in general, I rather dislike this clause: in order to record all possible information from high-energy collisions.

I also advise against too much jargon, even outside the introduction. For instance, this sentence: Another is the radiation it will be exposed to due to its proximity to the interaction point, requiring that all components be rad-hard could be made significantly clearer by simply expanding rad-hard to radiation hardened, and even better with some small bit about what this means.

There's also some capitalization consistency issues; for instance, the article can't seem to decide whether detector names are capitalized or not. I'll give it a more careful read later. — Laura Scudder | Talk 01:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

But one more thing right now: I don't know if you're at CERN now, but some sharper images (or at least the yellow ones brightened in post-processing) would be great. I'm also not sure how much Image:ATLAS CMS HQ.jpg adds to the article right now. For a photo that's really just serving for a size scale it's a rather grey and dull. — Laura Scudder | Talk 02:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried to address your comments. Some problems that are hard to solve are:

1. New pictures wouldn't be easy to do even if I were still there, because tours of those areas aren't trivial to get and the conditions are extremely non-photogenic there. Perhaps they can be edited, but I'll leave that to someone better at that stuff than me, if possible.
2. The collaboration itself isn't consistent on detector name capitalization. Any suggestions on what to pick?

Thanks for your comments! -- SCZenz 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I figured that was the case with the photos. Labs are always difficult to photograph. I'll see if I can find a copy of photoshop around.

I'm undecided on the capitalization. Some are made into acronyms and so that seems to favor capitalization, but Muon Spectrometer seems very wrong. As you can tell, I can be a real nitpicky reviewer sometimes. Hopefully we'll get some non-physics folk in here, too. — Laura Scudder | Talk 03:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think SCT, TRT, and Pixel Detector are names. Inner Detector might be also. Tile Calorimeter is the name of the hadronic calorimeter, but I think I only use the latter descriptive term (which should be lower case). Presumably electromagnetic calorimeter and muon spectrometer are lower case as well. But does it still seem inconsistent that some detector components have real names, but others don't? -- SCZenz 03:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)