Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control
| WikiProject Physics Main / Talk |
Members | Quality Control (talk) |
Welcome | ||
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
.jpg?lang=en){kind=small}
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. | |
Re-evaluate quantum field theory
[edit]Apologies if this is the wrong place to post. Quantum field theory was entirely rewritten in 2018 following the discovery of plagiarism. The quality has certainly improved, but the quality rating remains at C. What is the process to have its rating re-assessed? Yinweichen (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I used Rater to reassess the quality, which predicted a "B" rating, with 80.5% confidence. Nice work! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Would it be worth going through a GA review process? Yinweichen (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, go for it! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Would it be worth going through a GA review process? Yinweichen (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Removal of decay energies from isotope pages?
[edit]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. Kylesenior (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Re-assess F D C Willard
[edit]I like the story as much as the next guy, but I have a hard time seeing how a cat rates as a mid-importance article. 138.234.75.76 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The shape of the atomic nucleus
[edit]An article with the above title has just gone live and is in need of assessment. Urayness (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Carlos Frenk
[edit]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)