Wikipedia:Peer review/HiPER/archive1

HiPER

Peer review normally leads to FA, but in this case I'd like to use this process in order to clear up any problem areas before going to GA. I'm particularly interested to know if the language is clear, and if jargon is explained. Any obvious areas left underdeveloped? Thanks! Maury 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will.i.am

Here's just a few comments you may or may not find useful:

Could you add the e-mail correspondence (the one(s) in the references) to the article's Talk page? That would give all the pages' editors the same information to improve the article.
More references in general would be a good idea. The article will need more than two references (with no inline footnotes) to pass GA. I tried googling HiPER and a few newspaper articles came up that could be used for footnote/references.
In the references section a link to a "factsheet" is included. Perhaps an External links section could have the homepage to HiPER linked up as well.
In general, the article still has a very technical tone to it. This does three things: 1) it gives it an air of authority (which is good), 2) it makes it not very "fun" to read, and 3) sometimes it makes it difficult to follow for a non-expert like me (and I'm a scientist, which many readers will not be). Here's a few of places that stood out as being able to have their language simplified:

tends to dump a considerable amount of energy into the hot electrons around the target - I know what you mean. But "dumping" energy might be more easily understood as "a considerable amount of energy is lost to the hot electrons around the target". Also, what are "hot" electrons?
higher frequencies couple much less strongly - almost no non-scientist I know says couple or decouple. How about "higher frequencies do not affect ... as strongly"?
The best high-repetition lasers currently operating are much smaller; MERCURY at LLNL is about 70 J, HALNA in Japan at ~20 J, and LUCIA in France at ~100 J - Could we spell these acronyms out? It's easier to see what the actual instruments are that are being referenced.
an order of magnitude less expensive than conventional devices - I like how order of magnitude was wikilinked, but perhaps "ten times cheaper" is easier to understand for a lay-person.
In the case of HiPER, this driver laser system is fairly conventional, but seemingly undersized. - a few words explaining what "undersized" really means would help. E.g., "the driver laser system is fairly conventional, but has less powerful lasers than other systems." (if that's what undersized meant).
The beam width at exit from the beamlines is about 20 cm across. - perhaps "After filtering, the final beam width is about 20 cm across."
Here, you start with a short-pulse broad-bandwidth laser source, as opposed to the driver which uses a fairly monochromatic source. - I'm not sure what to change broad-bandwidth too, but monochromatic could be simplifed to "single frequency".
The precise number and power of the beamlines are currently a matter of some amount of research. - suggest "The precise number and power of the beamlines are currently a subject of research.
There are others, but I think you get the idea.

Good luck with the article!--Will.i.am 02:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will! I have incorporated most of your comments, along with a few I got from Mike. I hesitate putting the e-mails in the discussion page, but I will ask -- he didn't seem to worried about putting his e-mail address "out there" and even suggested it be placed in the article. Maury 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't thinking about putting his e-mail address on there. (In fact, I probably wouldn't, even if he requested it. In the event that someone wants to contact him I'm sure google will find him anyway.) But I was thinking the contents of the e-mails, perhaps in question/answer format with any personal details/salutations/etc removed.--Will.i.am 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, thanks for the input! Mike Dunne has also looked over a recent version and given it the thumbs up. I've incorporated much of what was said here, and I'm going to remove the PEER tag and move on in the process. Maury 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]