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 kept by User:Joelr31 01:59, 8 January 2009 [1].

Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts automatically notified by bot

This article no longer appears to meet FA specifications.

• The lead section does not comply with WP:LEAD. There are seven paragraphs, whereas WP:LEAD recommends a maximum of 4. It needs to be re-edited.
• More importantly, there are multiple paragraphs and sections that are not properly cited.
• There is overlinking. For example, momentum is wikilinked 5 times; wavelength 4 times; electromagnetic radiation 8(!) times, frequency 4 times, polarization 4 times, quantum mechanics 5 times, Albert Einstein 5 times, &c. Some obvious terms shouldn't need links, such as lens, matter, mass, energy, eye, physics, vision (twice),annihilated and chemistry. "Compton scattering" is not linked at first occurance.
• "More daringly" and "perhaps more remarkably" don't seem neutral and the opinions are not explained.
• Some of the citations are inconsistently formatted.
• "position eigenstate" is not explained, per WP:Jargon.
• There are minor format issues, such as spaced em-dashes, plus hyphens where an en- or em-dash would be appropriate.

&c. Overall it is still in somewhat decent shape, so some cleanup and references should be sufficient.—RJH (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of these changes are relatively small. Don't you think it would be more productive to make at least some of the changes yourself, and/or to make some suggestions on the talk page, rather than starting the good 'ol de-featuring timer? -- SCZenz (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, normally I would often take care the minor issues myself. But, in this case, the problems with the lead and significant lack of references seemed sufficient in themselves to trigger an FAR, so I decided to do a review instead. The neutrality issues also seem like subjects that need to be addressed by an SME.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is honestly utterly terrible, now that I look in detail. It appears that it has suffered bloating due to POV-pushing and arguments, with the attendant over-precision. It has inaccuracies, as have been discussed recently on Talk:Photon. I think it needs a complete rewrite, and I will work on this, along with the references. The rest of your points are minor as I said above -- and I still wish this had been handled through means other than featured article review, like an ordinary message to WP:WikiProject Physics. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I am not quite clear why you have a problem with the FAR process. If I had avoided it, then either the problems would get addressed or they wouldn't. If they weren't addressed, then an FAR would still be necessary. Otherwise it is the same net result.—RJH (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll reply on your talk page, lest we get off topic. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I rewrote the lead. Please let me know what you think! (I'll get back to referencing later.) -- SCZenz (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the lead is improved. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Young Diffraction.png source is a little weak. Can we have a reference to the original? DrKiernan (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently from a presentation given to the Royal Society around 1803. See for example [2]. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be willing to add some references. Unless someone else is already on this? Markus Poessel (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't had time yet.. please do take a look! -- SCZenz (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to add at least some more of them over the next few days. Markus Poessel (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on the refs, so that should make Sandy a bit happier about them, but it's not complete. There's a lot of plain hand-formatted text that'll need to be turned into template text, but the big job is done (multiline, uniformize some outputs, preliminary citation bot run, etc, split into notes and refs, ...). A suggestion for the body would be to textify the simple math, and to use \scriptstyle for what cannot be converted. I'll keep working on the refs for some time, so if someone could take care of the math, that would be nice.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and lead. Joelito (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The re-written lead looks good to me. And as far as I can see, all but two of the sections needing additional citations have received them. I'll see if I can rustle up sources for the remaining uncited paragraphs, but it looks to me like restoration of the article has progressed pretty well, which is why I was caught a bit off-guard by the move from FAR to FARC. Markus Poessel (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There was still one citations-needed template left which I just removed (there is a cite for the last paragraph and the other paragraphs are basic and not controversial). With all the improvements, this article should be a keep. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've finally gotten around to go to a library, and have filled in all the references that still appeared to be missing. With that, the citation problem should be fixed, and the lead looks good, too, so: keep. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep issues addressed. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixes still needed: not happy generally, but the main work remaining is that the article mixes citation styles, using the citation template and the cite xxx family of templates (see Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates and tools re not mixing styles) ad there are many incomplete citations (ex: Sheldon Glashow Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December 1979. ) and an inconsistent citation style with respect to author name, date fields, and the citation vs. cite xxx templates. I fixed a lot of other little things myself, think the prose could be clearer, but won't object. The citations should be cleaned up, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Several weeks, fixes still needed, still missing publishers and needs citation cleanup (Samples: Sheldon Glashow Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December 1979. Abdus Salam Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December 1979.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.