Talk:Moment of inertia/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Corvus coronoides (talk · contribs) 19:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Review in progress. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 19:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Overall a promising topic, but needs significant reorganization to make the article understandable. In particular, math-heavy sections should be examined to ensure that they comply with WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and the coverage of the article should be examined. I suggest comparing to the article on mass to determine an appropriate level of coverage.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead needs work to make it clear and concise. I have a solid mechanics background and find the wording confusing, and the first three sentences appear to repeat themselves. Some of the material in the Introduction section would work well in the lead. I suggest taking a look at WP:LEAD and overhauling the lead, making sure that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points." As a rule of thumb, anything warranting its own section in the article probably warrants a mention in the lead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are there. I'm not worried about the unreferenced derivations; I believe they fall into WP:SCICITE's "uncontroversial knowledge" category. OR not a problem.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Re: breadth of coverage, some of the comments from previous GA reviews still apply. With such a topic an "Applications" section is a vital part of adequate coverage. Re: focus/unnecessary detail: the article reads as a pile of derivations in its current state and needs reorganization. Derivations may be important for textbooks but not here. For example, calculating the moment of inertia may be left at I = int(Mr^2). It may help you to look at the article for mass to get a sense of what level of coverage would be appropriate.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   A few small images don't have captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The issues that need to be addressed are major, so I am going to fail this GAN for now. Please renominate the article only after these issues have been addressed, and don't hesitate to ask me for clarification.

I will offer a suggestion for a starting point for reorganization, which I believe will enhance readability and clarity of the article, but feel free to do something different:

• Lead - with definition, uses (in calculating properties of rotating bodies), and applications
• Calculating the moment of inertia - this section would wrap in current sections 2-4.
• The inertia tensor - this section would wrap in current sections 5-8.
• Applications of moment of inertia

If the derivations are cut I think this will make for a more readable encyclopedia article.

Best, Corvus coronoides _talk 20:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the decision is made. I will return the mathematics sections back to the article, and leave it as is. Thank you for your time. Prof McCarthy (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)