This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.198.37.16(talk) at 03:07, 18 November 2023(WikiProject Physics|class=start|importance=high). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 03:07, 18 November 2023 by 67.198.37.16(talk)(WikiProject Physics|class=start|importance=high)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
This article does not adequately introduce its subject or stand alone
@Fgnievinski – You copy-pasted the middle of another article as the lead of this one. It doesn't work; the content fits in okay as a section there, but as a lead it does not adequately introduce the context or explain what the subject is. This lead needs to be completely rewritten so that e.g. a non-technical reader who ends up here can get a basic idea of what it is about. I removed the "excerpt" on the other article, because if at any point someone writes an even basically adequate lead here, it will no longer be appropriate as a summary in the context of the middle of another article.
(Aside: This is the fundamental problem with the "excerpt" feature, and why it should be avoided to the extent possible; it inherently promotes mediocrity.) –jacobolus(t)15:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do a quick rewrite, but this is still not amazing (in particular, is pretty dense on jargon and thus not very friendly to non-technical readers). –jacobolus(t)17:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the content here is almost entirely unsourced. Can you try to track down some high-quality references? I have plenty else I'm working on and don't immediately need another research project. –jacobolus(t)17:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The automatic excerpts are "economical" in the sense that they save a few bits in database storage somewhere, but they are a mediocre result for readers and they discourage improvements from other Wikipedians. Just plain copy/paste is better in pretty much every way. –jacobolus(t)18:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]