View source for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Tabs}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=2160
| archiveprefix=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control/Archive
| numberstart=1
| maxarchsize=100000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads=5
| format= %%i
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Physics}}
}}
{{archives|search=yes|banner=yes|age=90|bot=ClueBot III}}

== Removal of decay energies from isotope pages? ==

I believe this has happened over the last few years and my understanding is that this was some sort of consensus decision, but can someone point me towards the page where this was decided or give me the rundown on why decay energies were removed from isotope pages?

For example, in [[Isotopes of uranium]] no decay energies are given in any of the tables. Some of the specific sections for certain isotopes contain this information, but being as part of paragraphs and not in a table, it's a pain to find. [[Isotopes of americium]] is slightly better as some of the specific isotope sections have tables with this info, but many are still missing.

The removal of this info makes very little sense to me. [[User:Kylesenior|Kylesenior]] ([[User talk:Kylesenior|talk]]) 03:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

== Re-assess F D C Willard ==

I like the story as much as the next guy, but I have a hard time seeing how [[F._D._C._Willard | a cat]] rates as a mid-importance article. [[Special:Contributions/138.234.75.76|138.234.75.76]] ([[User talk:138.234.75.76|talk]]) 17:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 18:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

== The shape of the atomic nucleus ==

An article with the above title has just gone live and is in need of assessment. [[User:Urayness|Urayness]] ([[User talk:Urayness|talk]]) 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

==Carlos Frenk==
A rating of low-importance seems a little harsh to me given the awards and recognition he seems to have accumulated. (Also, wasn't sure where to post this, but was looking for input on a specific aspect of the article [[Talk:Carlos Frenk#Article improvement|already noted on the talk page]]) [[User:Leonstojka|Leonstojka]] ([[User talk:Leonstojka|talk]]) 03:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

== Re-Evaluate Importance of Particle Physics Experiments ==

I noticed a bit of inconsistency in the rated importance of various neutrino-physics experiments. 

- [[DONUT]] is ranked as "low-importance" in physics despite being credited with the discovery of the [[Tau_neutrino]]. Shouldn't a discovery of a "top-importance" fundamental particle merit "high" or "top" importance?

- [[Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment]], [[Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory]], and [[Hyper-Kamiokande]] are inconsistently ranked in importance (medium, medium, and low respectively). Each of these are next generation neutrino observatories making niche measurements on fundamental properties of neutrinos. For consistency, these should all be low-importance, or all should be medium-importance. [[User:BRSmithers|BRSmithers]] ([[User talk:BRSmithers|talk]]) 01:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)