Talk:Wu experiment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reyk (talk · contribs) 15:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this; hope to have it finished in a week or so. It looks pretty good at first glance. Reyk _YO! 15:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable with no original research

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
it contains no original research Y
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism Y

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio Inconclusive

6a media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Miscellaneous points

Wu being the first Wolf Prize winner should be cited; here is a suitable source
It's not clear from the article what is the distinction between "a mirrored version of the world and the mirror image of the current world."
The point about the Wu experiment being a way to define left and right operationally is important and should be mentioned in the lead. It's clearer to the average reader than subtle technical points about parity conservation.
- Also, the bit about the emission direction of the gamma rays needs to be clarified a little. How do they work as a "control"?
The article is coming along well. I think the Experiment section needs more sources.
It seems Wu was anxious about other scientists beating her to the punch, and therefore cancelled a holiday to do the experiment: [1]
The images seem mostly fine. I'm not 100% sure what the point of the Feynman Diagram is, and Krea makes a good point about a possible missing image.

Comment

Coincidentally, I was looking at the page because I wanted to know the details of Wu's experiment, and I found this review. I think the article is good, but not great. Its major weakness is that it skips over the real principle behind the experiment very quickly: there's a lot of exposition about the setup and the decay, but then what you expect to see, and crucially why, is left to a sentence or two. The diagram in "The Experiment" section that endeavours to explain the theoretical setup could also be better, or at least far better explained. I can try to add a few sentences to effect these emendations and you can judge for yourself if that's any better. Krea (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Krea:, you are more than welcome to work on the article. Reyk _YO! 10:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: You're welcome. I've made a few edits. I tried to incorporate the theory into the existing "The experiment" section, but I found it too unwieldy. In consequence, I've added a theory section to explain the basic idea of the experiment. I'm not sure if it's clear enough to explain to the casual reader the essential points, but that's my best attempt for what it's worth. I've gone over Wu's paper, which is surprisingly short, and I've tried to add some of the points that it makes without going into the details too much. As such, I've also made a few minor corrections and added a few points. I've also removed the diagram that I was complaining about before: I think it really doesn't help because it kind of conflates Wu's setup and the general argument for why emission anisotropy implies parity invariance. My reading of Wu's paper is that the experiment doesn't depend on reversing the polarizing field, but it does do that for experimental reasons. So, a diagram that talks about flipping the polarizing field gives an incorrect impression of the experiment. What would really be nice is a diagram like the one here: [2] (p. 7) that explains the anisotropy/P-violation idea. I'll see if I can find one that is in the public domain.

Let me know if you have any comments or criticisms on my additions or changes. Krea (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]