Talk:Mad About Physics

Reasoning for Removal of Deletion Message

The Mad About Physics article is no longer an orphan. The page is linked to the author’s Wikipedia bio, and it’s also linked to “paradoxes” and “cognitive dissonance,” which are two topics relevant to the subject matter covered by the book. Functioning external links have been placed on the page. The external link to the Physics World article "Burst bangers and brain busters" by Peter Ford has been made available. Any internet user can gain access to the article by simply creating a free sign-in for the Physics World site, which takes less than a minute to do. The second source, a review of Mad About Physics written by Carol Ryback, is an offline source, which the wikipedia:offline sources and wikipedia:verifiability pages state can be used, provided the source is reliable. Ryback’s review is featured in Astronomy magazine, a reputable source, which can be accessed from online educational databases. Mad About Physics is a notable entry to add to Wikipedia; the book is very popular, as it has been published in several languages, and it has been used as a teaching resource in several universities. Furthermore, many reviews have been published about the book besides the two mentioned. For example, reviews for Mad About Physics also exist in Science News, specifically the Science News Books section published in Vol. 158 of December 2000, as well as in the March 2003 issue of the Library of Science magazine. Any suggestions are welcome for increasing the quality of the page or for providing easier access to listed sources. BCornine (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the above information. I was the editor who proposed the deletion. Sorry about that. It was difficult for me to determine what reliable sources are available.

After you mentioned "online educational databases" I used my public library's database to go to Academic Onfile and found citations for some of the sources you mentioned above and a few others. I was also able to access full text on Academic Onfile for most of them. Also, we might want to mention that the Peter Ford reference is available with a free sign in to the web site, although that is not required. It is just for the benefit of readers.

You might have or might not have noticed that the article itself could use a rewrite. I am trying to find the simplest possible article writing guides on Wikipedia. However, it seems you have a grasp of the basics such as adding references, in-line citations, infomation box, external links, article sections and so on. So, at least you are more than half way there to creating a good article.

Accordingly, hopefully this block of text on article structure is helpful. If this doesn't make sense let me know. Likewise, if you don't know already, Wikipedia has a manual of style that you might want to peruse in order to find sections that will help you. If you have any questions let me know here or on my talk page. One more possibility is take a look at other physics book articles and other science book articles on Wikipedia for examples. Regards. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the content section should be restructured. Pasting the preface doesn't seem to be a good idea for Wikipeda articles... Princeeternity (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this isn't ready for copyediting. It has too many things that look like they'd come from the book's back cover. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

my two cents - this book definitely should have an article. It's a very unique book. Danski14^(talk) 13:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)