GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Fearstreetsaga (talk · contribs) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Good job on the article; it was a very interesting read. Comments:
- Lead
- The citations in the lead aren't needed since the content appears elsewhere in the article
Deleted citations in lede after double-checking body of article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fresnel drag coefficient
- "velocity v" --> "speed v"
- Ref S6: No page number
Will pay visit to university library on weekend Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)- I was a bit confused since S6 is now S3 because of the removal of the lede citations. Using the rp template, I've added the page range 15–20 to the section discussing Einstein's addition formula. To be completely precise, Lorentz's comment on the dispersive term is on page 18, but I'd rather cite the complete section.
- The use of punctuation after an equation is inconsistent. E.g., a period is placed after Lorentz's formula under this section but is missing from his formula under "Lorentz's interpretation".
- Repetitions
- "Fizeau's tubes were of small diameter resulting in observational difficulties" Could you elaborate on this?
- I also elaborated on "there were uncertainties in Fizeau's determination of flow rate" since this is a related issue that Michelson also addressed. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hoek experiment
- I suggest adding a caption explaining what the spectrums in the image represent. It's not immediately obvious just by looking at the image alone.
- Added caption. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Controversy
- "see section above" A link to the relevant section would be useful
- "On one hand, the aberration of light, the Fizeau experiment and the repetition by Michelson and Morley in 1886 appeared to prove the (almost) stationary aether with partial aether-dragging." Too verbose. What about something like "On one hand, the aberration of light, the Fizeau experiment and the repetition by Michelson and Morley in 1886 appeared to support partial aether-dragging."
- Lorentz's interpretation
- S1: No page number
- S1 is now S10 because of removal from references from lede. Added appropriate page numbers via rp template.
- "He succeeded in deriving Fresnel's dragging coefficient by the reaction of the moving water upon the interfering waves" The meaning of this is unclear to me
- I hope that the following wording represents an improvement? "He succeeded in deriving Fresnel's dragging coefficient as the result of an interaction between the moving water with an undragged aether." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Derivation in special relativity
- "approximating to the first non-trivial correction" Could you define this?
- Replaced with "dropping higher order terms" Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- There appears to be an inconsistency italicizing v and c throughout the article: In this section there are v and c that are italicized and not italicized
Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Italicized. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Fearstreetsaga: Article should be ready for your re-review. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Great work. I'm satisfied this article meets the GA criteria, so I'll pass it. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)