Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Weak interaction/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
The talk page had concerns about the article's quality posted 3 months ago, mainly about numerous uncited statements. This is still an issue three months later so I'm nominating it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Onegreatjoke I must strongly disagree with the statement "concerns about the article's quality posted 3 months ago" used here. What is in the talk page comment is mention of some paragraphs without sources, and the lead being an incomplete description. Similar to an AfD discussion, that is not the strongest argument. A topic such as Weak interaction is almost impossible to summarize in a simple lead, it is too large and complex. Also, looking quickly, many of the unsourced paragraphs are connective or introductory. Maybe someone will add some sources, I am not qualified to even though I have a physics background. I suspect that many potential editors will be put of by the abrupt nature of this nomination and a lack of detailed physics-based analysis of the issues. While it is easy to count sources/paragraph, I don't think that is high level analysis, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- There are still some statements that seem to be uncited regardless of whether they're connective or introductory. Plus, the GA guidelines state "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)", so these will need to be cited regardless. I'm not sure if the lead is an issue but i feel that the citation of the article still requires work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)