Talk:Standard Model/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 07:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I will be reviewing this article. It's quite big and important, so it wouldn't be quick. I will add more comments later.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Few comments/question:

• In Standard_Model#Fundamental_interactions there is an 'uncited' template. All section should be cited; you can check the sources of corresponding articles, but please check them and not just copy-paste.
• In See also there is Standard Model: Mathematical formulation of, Physics beyond the Standard Model. IMO both this links should be in text, the article about Standard Model should also include a section about alternative modelsm as well as about its mathematical apparatus.
• Quantum chromodynamics sector, etc - These sections are not very detailed; the article about Mathematical formulation is much better.
• Tests and predictions section should be broader; there is a lot more that can be said about W, Z bosons, gluons, ang Higgs boson discoveries.
• Experiments indicate that neutrinos have mass, which the classic Standard Model did not allow.[41] To accommodate this finding, the classic Standard Model can be modified to include neutrino mass. - was this modification made by anybody? does it work as intended?
• Some physicists consider it to be ad hoc and inelegant, requiring 19 numerical constants whose values are unrelated and arbitrary - maybe instead of vague 'some physicists' you can use real names?
• Experiments indicate that neutrinos have mass, which the classic Standard Model did not allow.[41] To accommodate this finding, the classic Standard Model can be modified to include neutrino mass. and a bit later Although the Standard Model, as it now stands, can explain why neutrinos have masses, the specifics of neutrino mass are still unclear. It is believed that explaining neutrino mass will require an additional 7 or 8 constants, which are also arbitrary parameters.[47]. It's vague and unclear.
• ref 33 - "Confirmed: CERN discovers new particle likely to be the Higgs boson". YouTube. Russia Today. 4 July 2012. Retrieved 6 August 2013. - Russia Today's video on youtube is not the best source for the article about theoretical physics. Is it important? If yes, maybe some article or CERN statement has the same info?
• ref 37 - http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model Official CERN website - please cite using 'cite web'.
• In 'External links' wikiquote should be on top.
• In 'Gauge bosons' there is just one reference.
• In 'Fermions' there are no references.
• Mathematical consistency of the Standard Model requires that any mechanism capable of generating the masses of elementary particles must become visible[clarification needed] at energies

These are just a few comments after first reading of the article. it seems that it needs a lot of attention, so i will place this review on hold. Please ping me if you'll resolve these issues or have any questions.

I've re-read this article several times, and in my opinion it's not a GA. It's a dominant physical theory, and for an article on such topic it can be much better. There are several unreferenced sections and 'clarification needed' marks, and some sections that not directly contradict each other, but just seems to be unpolished. It also a bit strange that this article was nominated by an IP user, who didn't edit it. Besides, there were about 50 edits in the previous 2 months; there was no edit war, but changes were quite significant. So it's a fail, though I hope somebody would rewrite problematic sections and nominate SM a little bit later. Artem.G (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)