Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control

WikiProject Physics v t e
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 5.

The shape of the atomic nucleus

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

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 already noted on the talk page) Leonstojka (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. BRSmithers (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder deities?

I was looking through the top- and high-importance physics articles, and was a bit surprised to find List of thunder deities classified as a high-importance physics article. The list itself does not reference physics in any way. Is this a mistake? Or does anyone know off the top of their head how this classification comes about? Markus Pössel (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does content reassessment work?

I was perusing some articles listed in the lower assessments, and a few of them looked to me as if they deserved a higher ranking (even being a bit conservative). I've read the content assessment page. A lot of them looked like the last update they got to their ranking was around 2010 as well.

I would be willing to do some content reassessment and be conservative but update these somewhat. What is the actual process behind that for this Wikiproject? Rderdwien (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For articles Stub, Start, C and B, I use WP:Rater and if the result is clear and consistent with my assessment I make the change. The tool does not seem to work on GA or FA articles. Note that the tool is a bit odd. I've never seen it say "C 90%", rather it will report "B 90%", so the % part is almost a measure of the distance to top B. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]