Wikipedia:Peer review/Vacuum/archive1

Vacuum[edit]

After months of arduous work, we have nothing to show for it. Seriously folks, I think we've done a good job on this page, it's quite stable, and nearly ready to go for FAC. Your constructive criticism would be appreciated.--Yannick 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead can be safely doubled or tripled in size, at the moment it's pretty light. MoS is rather strict when it comes to bolding: unbold things like 'perfect vacumm' and turn them into ilinks. I'd recommend moving 'Historical interpretation' section to the begining - history often goes first and the current 'Vacuum Quality' section is rather to technical and can scare away people. I'd recommend expanding 'Uses' section - it is quite short now. Keep up the good work :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) Yes, I think, the lead section should be expanded and probably reworded, e.g. a reference in it seems to be inappropriate to me. Some of the sections should not just list characteristics with numerical values, but rather be description-style, in particular "Properties" section doesn't look good for me. But as concerns comprehensiveness, I see the article to be very good and helpful. Cmapm 13:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Techy stuff should go down the bottom, move Vacuum Quality / Measurement / Properties to the end, just before notes. --PopUpPirate 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, all of you. I've working up close with this article for a few months, and had lost track of some of the wider perspective.

I agree with your general comments to expand the lead and move technical details to the end, but I disagree on some of the specifics. I don't really want to move 'Historical interpretation' to the begining because I have concerns about its completeness and accuracy in its current form. The philosophical debates about vacuum were much more complicated than is currently represented. However, maybe 'Uses' and 'Vacuum pumping' would be suitable first sections? I had placed 'Vacuum quality' and 'Measurement' at the top to explain the quantification of partial vacuum early on, but this can probably be done in the expanded lead section.
A minor edit war and arguments on the discussion page indicate that many users have trouble understanding the physical impossibility of perfect vacuum, despite explanations in the article. That's why I put a reference in the lead section. I'm not sure how best to deal with that. Your suggestions are appreciated.
I reviewed the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and did not find it so strict regarding bolding. In fact, it seems to require bolding of alternate article titles such as "perfect vacuum". The legibility section says "Make judicious use of devices such as bulleted lists and bolding," but then it points to an outside article that seems to recommend bolding of the kind used in the Vacuum article.

--Yannick 02:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just tripled the size of the lead section per your suggestions, and I think this should allow the restructuring you have recommended.--Yannick 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reordered the sections to try to meet suggestions. Please comment.--Yannick 03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]