Talk:Foucault's measurements of the speed of light/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 23:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Fizeau.JPG = hosted on Wikimedia Commons = licensing checks out upon my Image review of the page there, no issues here. Y
File:Michelson's illustration of the Foucault experiment - annotated.png = hosted on Wikimedia Commons = licensing checks out upon my Image review of the page there, no issues here. Y
File:Speed of light calculation using Foucault's rotating mirror.png = hosted on Wikimedia Commons = licensing checks out upon my Image review of the page there, no issues here. Y
File:Michelson's 1879 Refinement of Foucault.png = hosted on Wikimedia Commons = licensing checks out upon my Image review of the page there, no issues here. Y

No issues with Image review. Next, on to Stability assessment.

— Cirt (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stability assessment

Upon my inspection of article edit history, article is stable going back at least to July 2015.
Article talk page shows good deal of discussion but appears to be positive and collaborative in nature.

No issues here. Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

While writing this article, I had debated whether I should add a citation to Sur les vitesses relatives de la lumière dans l'air et dans l'eau / par Léon Foucault (1853) into the section on Fizeau's determination of the speed of light, and a citation to Détermination de la vitesse de la lumière: d'après des expériences exécutées en 1874 entre l'Observatoire et Montlhéry, by M. A. Cornu (1876) into the section on Cornu's refinement of the Fizeau experiment. I ultimately decided against adding the citations because the references are in the French language, but in leaving them out, the two sections have fairly extended sections of otherwise unsourced text. Was this a mistake? Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please add the citations. Every single fact, and ideally ever single sentence, or at least ends of every single paragraph, should have in-line citations. You can use WP:CIT templates, and specify parameter for language. — Cirt (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Cornu ~~and Fizeau~~ references. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decided against the Fizeau reference, used Hughes 2012 instead. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 28, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Fizeau%E2%80%93Foucault+apparatus&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - shows no major issues - GREAT JOB HERE, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, NICE !!!
Suggest changing Notes sect to Footnotes, as this is more extra info than notes to back up the references sect itself.
Overall, the writing quality is good, accessible to the reader as I've mentioned, below, and quite educational on a topic in science. Well done overall.

2. Verifiable?:

Per WP:LEADCITE, cites not needed in lede intro sect, as long as same exact info is cited later on in article body text.
Checklinks analysis = http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Fizeau%25E2%2580%2593Foucault_apparatus = shows at least one problem in blue = "Service unavailable".
Please try archiving that link, and as many other links as possible, using Wayback Machine by Internet Archive via WP:CIT template fields archivedate and archiveurl.
Please add in-line-citations to the ends of each of the Footnotes, to back up the factual assertions made therein.
Strongly recommend adding in-line-citations to the ends of each of the captions in the images, to back up info asserted in those sentences.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is indeed thorough with a good overall presentation and structural layout. It is an esoteric science topic and yet written in an accessible manner for the reader, albeit obviously slightly clearer for those readers with some prior physics instruction as background.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article appears to be neutral and is written in a matter-of-fact tone, throughout.

5. Stable? See above, Stability assessment, no issues here.

6. Images?: See above, Image review, no issues here.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Re 2. Verifiable? Per WP:LEADCITE Not all info in lede is repeated in main body, so citations are necessary. I do not want to go into detail in the main body explaining the origin of the confused term "Fizeau–Foucault apparatus", because my WP:OR research indicates that the term was a neologism invented by a currently blocked Wikipedia editor in 2002 who didn't know the difference. Nor does going into detail about Fizeau and Foucault's partnership and breakup seem entirely relevant to the main focus of the article.
Re 2. Verifiable? Checklinks analysis Archiving is partway completed. Wayback Machine failed to properly archive several pages. Will try WebCite as an alternative tomorrow. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WebCite would not archive the links in question either, but was a bit ambiguous about the reason. So archiving is complete. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1. Well written? Notes sect to Footnotes Done.
Re 1. Well written? in-line-citations to the ends of each of the Footnotes Have done so for Footnotes 1, 3, and 4. I am leaving the citation style in Footnote 2 as it previously had been, since having the identity of the source of the quote in the body of the text is almost as important as the quote itself. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re 2. Verifiable? in-line-citations to the ends of each of the captions in the images Have added inline citations for Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5, since either the captions were complex or the figures were derived from original source material. The information in the Figure 1 caption is non-controversial and is unlikely to be challenged. Because of that, I do not feel that the Figure 1 caption requires an inline citation, and wish to avoid WP:OVERCITE. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1. Well written? Suggestion ... paying it forward My reviewer count is up to 14 with one in progress. My latest completed GA as reviewer is Talk:Termite/GA1 that required nearly three weeks of work with the two principal editors.
I believe that I have addressed all of your suggestions. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Passed as GA.

GA Nominator has responded to, addressed, or explained professionally why not addressing, my suggestions, from above.

My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to above recommendations by GA Reviewer.

Much appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]