Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

message: may someone read my comment? thanks. 151.29.78.113 (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be referring to Talk:Lennard-Jones potential#Pauli repulsion.--Srleffler (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  lennard-jones potential 

message: Can someone sufficiently knowledgeable update glueball to reflect the new experimental work in https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.181901. An article by Ethan Siegel reporting this is cited as the second reference, but the reference is only used in passing and the research and its significance is not discussed. Fences&Windows 08:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glueballs 

message: Please weigh in on Talk:Action_principles#Merge_proposal. 
Note that this merge is related to older discussions principle of least action. The effect of the merge would be to change that redirect to point to action principles. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge [[stationary action principle]] into [[action principles]] 

message: I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 750h+ 01:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sun]] FAR 

message: Hello everyone, I have submitted the Virgo interferometer article to FAC recently, and it has not attracted too much attention yet (perhaps due to the technicality ?). I would be happy if anyone was willing to take a look; you can find the candidacy page here. Thanks! Thuiop (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Virgo interferometer]] FAC 

message: Hi everyone! I usually write articles on physics topics, but I've been thinking about starting to write a bit more about people as well. For this reason I'm trying to get a feel for crierion 1 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics). What exactly qualifies as "highly cited". I've asked this question in the Teahouse, but I think its better to ask here since this community would have a better feel towards this physics niche case. The cases presented here are not obviously super stars since I'm also interested in what the lower bound is on this criterion.
For example, consider the following Professors at the University of Oxford:
* Andrei Olegovich Starinets: He has a MASSIVE impact on AdS/CFT hydrodynamics with his top cited papers have 2.9k, 1.7k, 1.6k, 1.2k citations each, which is pretty insane, so I'm baffled how he doesn't already have a page.
* Subir Sarkar: Cosmologist who is now Emiratus Professor at Oxford with a non-collaboration paper with 1.3k citations. His impact is however more due to his fundamental contributions to various collaborations such as IceCube and the Particle Theory Group and his most cited papers are from there. This is exemplified by the fact that his retirement had the department hold a 2-day conference called Subirfest https://subirfest.web.ox.ac.uk/home.
* John March-Russell: Discovered the axiverse (1.8k citations) (this is a very big thing due to the increadible popularity of axions to string theory), and has another important paper on FIMP thermal freeze with 1.1k citations.
* Joseph P. Conlon: He discovered the Large Volume Scenario with over 1k citations (this is the second most important mechanism for stabilising moduli in string theory, with the first most famous one being KKLT. These mechanisms are genuinely vital in constructing realistic string theory models and so are super important and comes up in standard string theory textbooks for example) and is a prominent string phenomenologists.
I'm not necessarily aiming to create articles for all (or even most or any) of them, cause, well, effort. But understanding if they are all indeed notable would help me in the future. Any thoughts? Thanks!!! OpenScience709 (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In my personal opinion, the notability criteria adopted for biographies is far below common sense. A large number of citations is a sign that the work itself is notable and we should invest articles about that work. The citations do not make the author notable. A notable author will have a biography written by someone other than a wikipedia editor, eg a historian or a scientist writing about history. The remaining criteria are even weaker, leading to many many Wikipedia vanity "resumes". I don't think these are interesting or knowledge, sorry. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic notability