Talk:The Feynman Lectures on Physics

message: The website in the outside links section claims to be "official" despite it saying
This website is not connected in any official way with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), which owns the rights to  The Feynman Lectures on Physics
...
This website is also independent of  Addison-Wesley, publishers of The Feynman Lectures on Physics
So in what sense it is "official" i cannot say...
:According to the website, it is maintained by authors of the series (and accompanying material from AW). ~ Jafet•work•play•watch 13:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Website 

message: The chapter links do not do justice to FLP. Linking chapter 1 to 'motion' is laughable. It might give  people the impression that the linked to pages are a summary of what is in FLP, when what is in FLP is the greatest coherent account of physics ever written. The linked to wikipedia pages...er...let's say...'variable'. I removed the link to 'motion'. Others may wish to do the same to other links...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.237.63 (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter Links 

message: This article needs to be checked for NPOV and sourcing. Many claims are unsupported or subjective; e.g. "Feynman was already a legend in his own time." I've already removed or sourced a few of these statements, but more work needs to be done. That's why I labeled this as "B" class.
I labeled it as "low" importance to be consistent with the pattern on other physics articles; if Physical Review is of low importance, then so is this work. SarahLawrence Scott 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Status 

message: "Feynman readily agreed to give the course, though only once. Aware of the fact that this would be a historic event, Caltech recorded each lecture and took photographs of each drawing made on the blackboard by Feynman."
It's wrong, because Richard Feynman was a long-term lecturer. See his book titled... I hardly remember.. "You must be kidding mr.Feynman" or something like this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.196.194 (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: I don't know any of the protocols of this stuff, but is it really appropriate to have a subscription-only article featured prominently in the introduction?
Surely if the general public (especially a public interested in learning physics from a basic starting point) is to be expected to have a subscription to an external website, then the link in question shouldn't be so visible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.49.180 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subscription-Only Links 

message: Wich is the current last edition/printing? 2005/2nd?
But:
>>
http://www.feynmanlectures.info/
(errata section)
FLP Definitive Edition 3rd printing
Lists of errata for the 3rd printing of the Definitive Edition of The Feynman Lectures on Physics (2005) and earlier printings and editions. All of the (approximately 80) errors in these lists were corrected in the 4th printing of the Definitive Edition (2006).
>>
Here 3rd and 4th printing appear...
--80.20.56.105 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wich edition? 

message: There are different opinions on whether The Feynman Lectures on Physics is successful in teaching students. Below are two education studies and two interesting articles:
1.	Crease, R. P. (2014). Feynman’s failings. Physicsworld, 27(3), 25-26.
2.	Philips, R. (2013). In retrospect: The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Nature, 
504, 30–31. 
3.	Treagust, D. F., & Harrison, A. G. (2000). In Search of Explanatory Frameworks: An Analysis of Richard Feynman's Lecture ‘Atoms in Motion.’ International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1157-70. 
4.	Wong, C. L., Chu, H. E., & Yap, K. C. (2014). Developing a Framework for analyzing definitions: A study of The Feynman Lectures. International Journal of Science Education. 36(15), 2481-2513.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.126 (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hi all, I see that the banner for insufficient citations has been here for awhile and this page is not edited often. I think this is an important series of books, and so I am going to start working on it. There are a many reviews of each of these book it won't I don't think it would take long to bring the article to GA status and having all the info here in one place is helpful (IMO). I just wanted to give a heads up that I plan to do major work soon. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @Footlessmouse, I disagree with insufficient citations. If you think that book reviews will lift the article to higher energies, do it, but it seems - considering the target: a book series on theoretical physics - well written, structured and cited. Compare with Classical Electrodynamics (book) citing 14 references and is B-rated. Regards  17387349L8764 (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient citations