Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ATLAS experiment/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ATLAS experiment[edit]

Note that this article was called A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS when the featured article candidacy began. The name was changed in response to comments. -- SCZenz 04:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. I didn't get much feedback in the peer review, so I imagine this may need some work before being ready, especially regarding readability by non-physicists. Please make objections, but please also check back to see if I've fixed them. I've worked hard on this article, and I plan to do more if necessary. -- SCZenz 22:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, lack of references. KingTT 23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added some links to the technical proposal and technical design report. How's it look? -- SCZenz 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks like a rather well written article, but one of the conditions for FA status is stability, and this article is about a structure that will be completed in 2007, which says to be that at that time, the article will have to undergo some fairly big changes, have additions, that sort of thing. I'm not sure an article about such a thing qualifies for FA status, even though it is a good article. Is there precedent? Fieari 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article describes what it will be like when it's built. Thus there's no need for changes in that regard when it's completed, and there are very unlikely to be significant physics results that would be noted for perhaps a couple years after that. That seems stable enough as Wikipedia goes, doesn't it? -- SCZenz 01:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As for precedents, you might consider articles about currently-used software, like Firefox, that are likely to undergo major upgrades over the span of a few years; also biographies on still-living people, who may accomplish more stuff in the future. -- SCZenz 01:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think the stability requirement refers to changes that may take place in a few years at all. From Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article: "'stable' means that an article does not change significantly from day to day (apart from improvements in response to reviewers' comments) and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars". -- SCZenz 01:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
YES! Good job...Scott 01:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's very well-written, and the prose is a little tended toward the scientific side, but I think that's excusable since it's a scientific article; also, you're correct in assuming the intent of the stability criterion. That said, here's some stuff I'd probably do:
    • Merge the subsections under "components" into their parent. For example, rather than having three subsections of "Inner Detector", just make those one big section.
    • Following from the above, make sure to stay away from one- or two-sentence paragraphs. Either expand them into something more substantial, or just merge them into a neighboring paragraph.
    • A few more references wouldn't hurt—maybe a newspaper or magazine article from somewhere? (This isn't necessarily essential, but it would certainly improve the article's case)
    • I'd like to see a little more somewhere in the article discussing exactly what scientists are expecting from the accelerator. Is it something that will verify experiments, or will be used to perform first-run experiments, or...?
  • Good luck! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. PacknCanes | say something! 03:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi PacknCanes, I've addressed your comments as follows:
      1. Merging of paragraphs and smaller subsections is done. It does look better that way.
      2. I put in a magazine article, but pop articles on an experiment two years away are fairly rare.
      3. I'm not sure I understand your last point. The article is about the detector, not the accelerator, and it is an experiment. It is looking mostly for new things nobody has ever seen before. Can you clarify for me what you'd like to be changed in the article?
    • Thanks so much for your comments! -- SCZenz 04:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK...I was misreading it. I thought that the accelerator was going to be used to verify other experiments, rather than be the experiment itself. Sorry...science turns the brain into spaghetti sometimes...hope you don't mind. :) The PhysicsWorld article does lend a lot of credence to it, if only to verify that it really does have scientific value (not that I was doubting it, but it does help). Overall, very well-written, could still use a couple more sources but you're right, finding sources on something to happen in the future can be difficult sometimes. Weak support -- thanks for addressing the earlier issues. Take care -- PacknCanes | say something! 04:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could cite articles in physics journals that mention what problems LHC can investigate, but likely nobody here would read them. And CERN is the world's largest center for particle physics; it seems reasonable to assume that information they host on physics experiments is accurate and credible. Anyway, thanks for your support. :) -- SCZenz 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think you really need another low-tech source, but it'd help, A possibility is something like a Physics Today article if there is one, which would be about at the same level as your Physics World one, or even a news brief type article from Science or Nature. I searched around a bit and couldn't find what I was looking for, but I thought you might know of one already. — Laura Scudder | Talk 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know of anything and can't find anything, yet, but I'll keep looking. For credibility's sake, I've also put a link to a review article from Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics in under references. -- SCZenz 15:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, I found something in the New York Times, and put it in. -- SCZenz 17:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Excellent! That makes it much easier to comprehend, plus gives it an air of legitimacy. Support unconditionally. PacknCanes | say something! 17:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Good find. I like that there's now a range of places to go to read more. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is good stuff. I've copyedited it; please see a few inline queries I've inserted. I've no problem with the stability factor mentioned above. I agree with the comment above about short paras and subsections. Oh, BTW, why not go with the advice on the discussion page and change the gobbledygook title: 'ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS)' would be easier. Tony 03:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, "A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS" is the name of the experiment, and the gobbledygook is still in your version too, but it's not a big deal to me. Except that I'm rather frightened of technical difficulties in moving the article during the FAC proceedings. -- SCZenz 03:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Idea: it could be moved to "ATLAS experiment"... What do people think of that? -- SCZenz 03:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, 'ATLAS experiment' is much nicer, and will attract more hits, I think. Tony 03:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC) PS Silly me: 'matter symmetry/asymmetry'—I guess it's obvious in retrospect! Tony 03:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Support. I made some comments some time ago on another page. The article has improved a lot since then.Count Iblis 12:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A really well-written article. I like the title change, and it's improved a lot with the comments here. — Laura Scudder | Talk 15:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object.
    • Too-short of a lead section for the topic, in my opinion.
    • Far too many quite-short sections and subsections. One-paragraph subsections and two-paragraph sections are too short.
    • Inconsistency with units. Example: Sometimes "cm", sometimes "centimeters". I believe the common units should be spelled out in text. Overlinking too; I don't think linking "cm" or "meters" is called for. Spell out numbers under 10.
    • Numbers and units should be separated with an   — see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Measurements
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I have some clarification on what should be done and how i would improve the article? Specifically:
    • If you want the lead-in to be longer, what else should it cover?
    • The structure of the headings and sub-headings are very well-suited to making the topic clearer. What's the advantage in changing them because they're "too short"...?
    • Yes, the units should be consistent, and I'll unlink the SI units, but why should they be spelled out? Spelling them out in some places would be awkward--would uniformly using abbreviations be ok?
    • Spelling out numbers under ten would be a disaster for consistency, I'd end up saying, for example that the Inner Detector is "1.2 m by seven m". Can you suggest what I should do about this?
  • Thanks for your comments. -- SCZenz 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead-in: I could be flexible on this one. Ideally, I'd like to learn a little more about who is building ATLAS and why.
  • Subsectionitis: Clarify and organize more through prose than through a lot of outline-style headings. This is a stylistic matter, but that is the style that seems to be preferred by most here.
  • Spelling out units: The same Manual of Style for measurements page says "Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, 'a 100-millimetre (4 in) pipe for 10 miles (16 km)'".
  • Spelling out numbers:Take it case-by-case, sentence by sentence. The example you give shouldn't be changed, but a sentence like "The inner solenoid produces a 2 tesla magnetic field surrounding the Inner Detector" definitely should. It's a matter of readibility.
  • Caveats — I'm not a hard-core language wonk and some of the specifics here might be debatable. But I did find reading many of the numbers and units in the article awkward, so at least my heart's in the right place. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Pretty much the same as grapes
  1. Lead too short
  2. "Background" - structure could use some work - maybe kill the subsections and write it out, maybe an intro, not sure
  3. "Physics program" - I don't like the list here - is there a pressing reason why you need it? I think it should be written out...
  4. "Components" - one-sentence paragraph lead-in
  5. Some parts of it are hard for a layman to read - "straw tracker" etc. sections like that are pretty short anyway so a short explanation might be in order...
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that Ryan Norton seems to be taking a Wikivacation or to have left altogether, according to his user page. :-( No edits from him since 10/22. I'm pretty confident that his objects have been addressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's slightly annoying, but thanks for putting the note in. Out of curiosity, since this FAC seems not to be getting any more comments, how much longer does it sit here until someone acts on it in some way? -- SCZenz 16:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After it's been listed for about a week, Raul654 usually comes through and promotes it if appropriate. The wait is agony, isn't it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed most of RN's and grapes' comments. Here's my update:
    1. Lead expanded to three paragraphs, with history and the general idea of the detector.
    2. Unnecessary subheadings in "background" removed, I think it'll be good now, especially with greater context in lead.
    3. There is a pressing reason why the list of physics goals is needed; these are six different things being looked for, and if I wrote it out as works it would still read like a list. Note that I could expand the physics program section substantially, but I am not sure this would improve the article. (Even in a FA, I ought not to be explaining all of the current mysteries of particle physics, or all of how to do data analysis; the article is about the detector.) Any comments on this?
    4. Components now has a proper lead-in
    5. Basically all of the detector systems are now explained in more detail, which incidentally makes them long enough to qualify as proper subsections (I hope). The exception is the muon spectrometer, which is of equivalent rank to the other components in the scheme of the detector, but about which there really isn't much more to say. It's still too short, but I think under the circumstances forcing a length increase or artificially merging it with another section would hurt the article.
    6. Units are fixed up as per grapes' suggestion.
  • The upshot of all this is that I've added so much the article probably needs another round of copyediting. Please let me know what comments you still have! Thanks again. -- SCZenz 09:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent work; I've struck most of my objections above and don't think this article has much farther to go now. It really feels like a meal rather than a snack now. I did quite a bit of copyediting just now — better check that I didn't make any errors. A couple issues still:
  1. (Minor) "The energy-absorbing materials are lead and stainless steel, sampled by liquid argon, and a cryostat is required around the EM calorimeter to keep it sufficiently cool." What does "sampled by liquid argon" mean? I thought maybe it was a typo, but wasn't sure.
  2. I'm with RN on the Physics program list. I think the section should be removed, actually, and the list of physics questions ATLAS hopes to answer should be moved into the Background section. I think it would read better as list-like prose, but it's OK by me if it remains a bullet-list. However, if it stays a bullet list, the list items need to be cleaned up to each be talking about the same class of thing... right now the list reads in a choppy manner, with each bullet starting with a different part of speech.
  3. (Very minor) I was a bit confused by the use of radians to measure the precision of the calorimeters; maybe this is an area that could be clarified for non-physics-people?
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made more big changes, which likely means more copyediting. Here's what I changed.
    1. I reworded slightly the liquid argon bit; what sampling means is explained in the first paragraph of the calorimeter section. Is that ok, or is it still confusing?
    2. I've now substantially expanded the physics program section, after deciding that the details of what physical ideas are being looked for are pretty important to the experiment and how it's put together, and merited a better treatment. Please read it over and let me know how it looks, and also whether the illustration is helpful--it's complex, but conveys a pretty accurate sense of the things that physicists really have to look for.
    3. I wrote a better explanation of what the use of radians means, let me know if it's comprehensible now. Do you think I should put the numbers in degrees as well?
    4. I've also expanded the data systems section, and added more details about how analysis is done.
    5. The muon section I've still got no inspiration on; hopefully you'll forgive me one short subsection. ;)
  • Thanks yet again for your help! -- SCZenz 05:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enthusiastically Support this FAC now. Just a few comments now:
  1. I still don't really grasp what it means for liquid argon to be the sampling material. That might be OK.
  2. I think this sentence could use a little polishing: "The Higgs mechanism, which includes the Higgs boson, is invoked to give masses to elementary particles—in particular, explaining the differences between the weak force and electromagnetism." I think I know that interactions with the Higgs field are what give the elementary particles mass, but the relation between that statement and a lack of symmetry between the weak force and EM escapes me.
  3. BLACK HOLES! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!! Oh, sorry. :-)
  4. Radians are fine, I was just suprised to see an angle and not a distance. The new diagram is good.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Really we need an article on particle showers and an expansion of calorimeter (particle physics) that would explain what's going on there better; but I don't think I ought to take up more space for it (since it would have to be a whole paragraph).
    2. I expanded somewhat better the situation with the Higgs mechanism; is it good enough now?
    3. Yeah, I almost put in an explicit statement that they're not dangerous, but that's discussed all over the place at Hawking radiation... ;)
  • Thanks so much for all your help and support! -- SCZenz 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're are very welcome; thanks for making such good improvements during this process! I suspected something like that was going on with the calorimeter; that's OK. The change you made to the part about Higgs mechanism is good enough: I still can't honestly say I understand it, but it no longer reads like a non-sequitur. Finally, life was more exciting before Hawking: worrying about a micro-black hole slowly eating the earth out from its core was a good time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I realize that the article isn't completely consistent on wikification, largely because I added a lot of new material before the previous uses of certain terms. Before I go through and make it consistent, I'd like some guidance. Should a term be wikified only the first time it appears in the article, no matter what, or if a term reappears again much later and is important should it be wikified again? -- SCZenz 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifying it again, especially in a new section, is fine, escpecially if the linked material really helps in understanding the topic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I disagree with Bunchofgrapes's response to the query about repeat linkings. Please see See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting for WP policy. Many WP articles are overlinked. An analogy to repeat linking within an article is the spelling out of acronyms on each occurrence through an article, rather than the standard practice of spelling out on first occurrence alone. Tony 16:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links does say you shouldn't link more than once, then parenthetically although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence. There's room to disagree here, certainly, but I feel strongly that relinking a technical or obscure topic in a new section, when it was last mentioned more than a few paragraphs earlier, is good practice. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there are a few cases in the article where it would be very helpful. I will go through carefully and remove any repeated links for which this is not true. -- SCZenz 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps once, but not repeatedly; that might be irritating. Tony 01:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/ATLAS_experiment/archive1&oldid=1136459121"