Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of particles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of particles[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 16 days, significant problems not addressed. Delist -- Scorpion0422 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the page because it has a lack of citations, a very small lead, and overall the article isn't very well organized. -- Scorpion0422 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To me the list looks ok. Citations are not appropriate in the list as the list refers to other articles. You certainly do not want to give a citation to original peer reviewed articles every time a new particle is mentioned. So, the citation to the text book at the end as is done now that covers the whole list is appropriate.
- The small lead is also ok, as there isn't much of importance to say in the lead of this list.
- Is the list not well organized? One could argue that it could be a little better, but overall it is excellent.
- So, in conclusion, this nomination seems to be based on only a citation count and a word count of the lead without evaluating the necessity/desirability of citations and a big lead. I therefore recommend keeping the featured list status of this article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um the lead is one sentence and comes nowhere close to "summariz[ing] the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in sections subsequent to the lead." There is plenty that can be added to the lead. Citations aren't only appropriate, they are necessary (see WP:V) and you say they aren't needed because "the list refers to other articles," well isnt that what every list does on Wikipedia, I mean that is the definition of a list on Wikipedia, and even lists need to have proper references and citations. The list is not excellent, it may be ok or just barely good, but nowhere close to excellent. I endorse de-list for now, unless the nominator's concerns are addressed.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] - I have to agree with the comments made already: the lead is insufficient and the article could be organized much more effectively. Additionally, I think a bit more prose expalaining each type of particle would be helpful, at least a bit more prose in each section. Right now the list is almost exclusively bullet points, which is nice for wikilinks, but doesn't really contextualize anything. Drewcifer (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be very difficult to add more meaningful text to all the "bullet points". Currently there is a wikilink that refers to the main wiki-article about the particle in question. These articles deal with, for lay persons, extremely technical stuff and it is always a Tour de Force to write a wiki article accessible for lay persons on such topics as Axions, supersymmetric particles etc. etc.
- So, adding more text would necessarily mean changing the list of particles into some big article as you need to have quite large introductions before each class of particles that are related. Perhaps this is what the above editors want, but it amounts to creating a new article, because currently it is really a list of particles, but you want to have some sort of overview of particle/theoretical physics. Count Iblis (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]