Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wu experiment/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Some paragraphs do not need citations because of WP:CALC but other statements explaining the history or experiment are probably necessary. I am happy to add "citation needed" templates if an editor pings me. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is the difference with the version that was approved. There was no susbstantial expansions, no citations removed, and no degredation. I hardly see anything that needs improvement here, or that would be detrimental to GA status. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: If editors wish, I am happy to add "citation needed" tags where I think need citations, to better highlight where I think they are needed. Sometimes another reviewer has concerns that were not highlighted by the first reviewer. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I added a couple of new sources that are especially good on the experimental side. (I apologize for not following the sfn formatting). Johnjbarton (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is a statement "However, Wu observed that the electrons were emitted in a direction preferentially opposite to that of the gamma rays ...", which makes no sense to me. The description of the gamma-ray emission suggests that there is no difference between the two poles in its pattern, only between the poles and the equator. Maybe it was intended to say "... direction preferentially opposite to that of the nuclear spin pseudovector ..."? —Quondum 20:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I fixed this one. Please check. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)