| content | ||||||||||||||||
|
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
|
| Start | This page has been identified as being of Start-Class on the assessment scale.[FAQ] |
| Top | This page has been identified as being of Top-Importance within physics. [FAQ] |
|
Comments about these ratings
|
|
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
Reviewing Cheatsheet
- The following highlights current issues. Feel free to either add the issues you've identified, or to strike them as they've been resolved.
- See also: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria
WikiProject Physics' Reviewing Cheatsheet (11:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC))
Do not remove the elements, but rather strike them as they becomes useless or irrelevant (i.e write <s>text to be struck</s>) to indicate that this element was verified and found to be alright.
If everything in one of the section (i.e everything in one hidden-box has been addressed), strike that particular hidden box's title.
This cheetsheet can be used by anyone.
To add the Reviewing Cheatsheet to an article's talk page, simply place {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Projects of the Week/Reviewing Cheatsheet}} immediately before the first section.
Vandalism
I don't know how/don't have time to revert it, but somebody's added the word 'balls' randomly into sentaces in the 'Conclusions' section.
Name of article
Should this article not be under Geiger-Marsden experiment with "Gold foil experiment" being a redir? Awolf002 16:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Itub 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me! --Fastfission 01:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I object
Okay, if nobody else watching this article objects I will go ahead and change it. Awolf002 15:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- It was certainly called the Geiger-Marsden experiment when I learnt about it at school years ago. Using the "Google test":
- "Geiger-Marsden Experiment" gets about 400 hits (or sometimes 500, which I don't understand)
- "Gold Foil Experiment" gets about 11,300 hits (or sometimes 21,200, which I don't understand either)
- "Rutherford Experiment" seems to be another name for it, and gets about 10,600 hits.
- "Rutherford Gold Foil Experiment" gets 805 hits.
- "Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment" gets a dozen or so hits.
- On the criteria of "most popular name" then Gold Foil seems to win, although this may not be the correct criteria to use. Jll 15:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I see the same results. However, since I do think we should have "Gold foil experiment" as a redir to "Geiger-Marsden experiment", I'm not certain this helps with this decision. I just think an article name should be 'precise' in the sense that it well describes its own topic, and "Gold foil experiment" seems to be weak. The title of a science article should also be "correct" in the sense that science is using that title as a clear and defined term, so a Google test has only limited value. That criterium might hold for both alternatives, but it still tilts the decision towards the "Geiger-Marsden Experiment" in my mind. Awolf002 01:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters too much. I prefer the less colloquial name personally, though I admit part of that reason is that this experiment gets too easily conflated with Rutherford himself and I think Geiger and Marsden deserve a little more visibility. But I recognize that's not a very compelling reason in and of itself! --Fastfission 01:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I find the scientific "correctness" argument compelling. Google gets many more hits for Mad Cow disease than for Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, but it is the latter that is used for the title of that article, and I think rightly so. I have changed my view from being unsure to agreeing that the title should be Geiger-Marsden experiment. Jll 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Alright, I will make the "Gold foil experiment" and "Geiger-Marsden experiment" swap places, as soon as the WP servers are more stable. Right now, editing is quite a pain. Awolf002 17:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Syntax Error
In the Conclusion section there's an error: "Rutherford came got bored"; Just letting everyone know, I'm changing it, just in case I made a mistake. I'm going to change it to "Rutherford got bored". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.86.66.228 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Some source problems
Is it me or is there very few in-text citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naidevinci (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
