Talk:Charm quark/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Will review this one. I didn't do any particle physics in ten years, would be fun to review it. I already started some minor ce, feel free to revert. Please expect my comments in the next days. Artem.G (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Artem.G! Thank you for agreeing to review my article. It has been put up for review for almost two months.

I currently have another article undergoing review, and I will be travelling this weekend, so I will get back to these next week. I hope you understand. TheLonelyPather (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

sure, no rush! Artem.G (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• with a mass of 1.27±0.02 GeV/c2 (as of 2022) - this reads strange, maybe something like (as measured in 2022) can work? the mass of any elementary particle is constant, but the precision of our measurements can be improved.
  • Done, used your wording.
• It carries charm, a quantum number. - though the sentence is fine, it's also confusing because the article for Charm (quantum number) says that Charm (symbol C) is a flavour quantum number representing the difference between the number of charm quarks (c) and charm antiquarks (c) that are present in a particle. I don't know right now how to rework it, will look into books later.
  • hmm, Appelquist, Barnett, Lane actually say that, A new quark carrying a new quantum number called charm has been discovered. Artem.G (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think I will stick to this interpretation. I think the Charm (quantum number) article is badly written.
      • Agree, that's not an issue of this review.
• In the next few years, several charmed particles were found. - what particles? examples would be nice to have
  • Done, added examples.
• maybe add Template:Standard model of particle physics?
  • Added, but in the "Characteristics" section instead of the lede or the history.

History

• I think that a small background section would be nice, with a short overview of quarks (what are quarks, what are quark generations, what other quantum numbers exist (except for charm))
  • Done. Added the historical background of the quark model and strangeness as the pre-existing quantum number. Quark generation, I think, wasn't proposed until quite a bit later, so I didn't include it in the "Background" section.
• See the following section for Iliopoulos' wager on wine - I don't think that's useful, that section is right after this paragraph
  • Done, removed the footnote.
• The J/psi meson (1974): you could mention that Nobel prize was awarded for Ting and Richter for that discovery
  • Done.
• The J/psi meson (1974): is there any photo of either SLAC or Brookhaven's accelerator from 1974? I saw some good photos of Ting, but everything is copyrighted.
  • I did look it up, but I couldn't find any in Wikimedia Commons.
• By the time of the Lepton-Photon Symposium in August 1975, eight new heavy particles had been discovered.[39] - is there a list of these particles in source?
  • No, Riordan only mentions the number.
• On 5 May, the two published a joint memorandum. Thus "naked charm" had been discovered.[42] - maybe combine to one sentence? smth like On 5 May, they published a joint memorandum about their discovery of the "naked charm".
  • Done, thanks for the advice.

Production

• A "cross section" is a measure related to probability in physics.[65] - I don't think that such definition is useful.
  • A footnote here is needed... I am now using the definition from Mark Thomson (2013). Done.

References

• See also is not needed here, all 4 links are already in the text.
  • Done, removed see also.
• You have very nice Bibliography section! One small comment though - why are sources 30, 48, 54, 56, 65 not there? All except 56 can be moved to News, and I believe 56 can be replaced with a citation from one of the textbooks.
  • Done, move everything except 56 to where they belong. 56 is replaced with a textbook definition.

That's all for now, I'll reread it later and will do a spot-check. Artem.G (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Artem.G: All suggestions addressed. They are very helpful. Ready to move on! --TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! Will try to finish it in a day or two. Artem.G (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Spot-checks

• Naming section - refs 1,2,3,5 - all good
• History - refs 7,2,18 - good; I've added pages to Riordan and checked several refs from the book - all good
• Mass is given in GeV/c2, but it's just "The value 1.27 ± 0.02 GeV" in Particle Physics Review, p 7 of the pdf. It also says "The-quark mass corresponds to the "running" mass mc (µ = mc) in the MS sheme." - maybe worth adding in a note?
  • Thanks! Note added in the "Characteristics" section.
• It carries a quantum number also known as charm.[60] - I think the phrasing from the lead is better. Charm is just one quantum number, but this sentence says that another name for "quantum number" is "charm".
  • Done, phrasing changed.
• Besides weak decays, the charm quark can annihilate with a charm antiquark through the ground state of charmonium mesons.[54] - I didn't get anything after "annihilate", what happens "through the ground state of charmonium mesons"? Source says An exception to this are decays of ground state charmonium mesons, which decay via annihilation of the charm and anticharm quarks, and I think that it'll be better just to use this quote.
  • Changed phrasing, paraphrased the quote instead of directly quoting it.

• Source check - pass, everything that I've checked is fine except two minor issues above.

Images are fine, all CC-BY-3.0 or CC0.

I still think that small backround section is needed, will look into the main quark article to see how it's described there. Artem.G (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Just added the small background section... TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

nice :) everything looks good, so it's GA now! you can ping me if you'll nominate another particle to GAN, will be happy to review. Artem.G (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.