Talk:Collision cascade

B-class criteria

user:Knordlun asked for a rational for the C-class rating of this article. For reference her are the criteria for B-class:

B	The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as `{{cite web}}` is optional. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

A thin pass. The article has a fair amount of inline citations, but many of the more basic claims are not attributed to a reliable source. This is normal for a journal article (where the author is assumed to be a reliable source for those statements), but on wikipedia such statements also need some form of referencing, not only from a point of view of verifiability, bur also pointers to general literature for an interested reader. This can typically be achieved by giving a couple of general references to standard works or review articles.
Marginal fail. Although the article reasonably covers the technical aspects of the subject (As far as I can tell, it is not my area of expertise), it neglects the more mundane aspects such as the history (when was the object first studied, how provided the basic theory, etc.). For a subject like this this should not be to major, but it is interesting to a general reader.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Fail. That article is written in field specific jargon. This reaches the point that is hard to understand for physicists with a graduate degree who are not into material science (like me), let alone a more general public.

Alhtough the article is fairly close to B-class it does not quite meet all the B-class criteria, and thus must rated as C-class. TimothyRias (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Particle shower be merged into collision cascade. They appear to describe the same thing. --Yannick (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree -- collision cascade is used specifically to denote collisions among atoms/ions inside a solid, while a particle shower is used for collisions of mostly electrons and gamma particles in a gas. The physics behind the two phenomena is very different, both because the interactions are and the collisional nature (former is binary collisions, latter often many-body collisions). 91.153.142.82 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also consider the two phenomena as almost fundamentally different. Collision cascades in most cases don't lead to the conversion of energy to matter, while it is the underlying principle of particle showers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.107.99 (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collision cascade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623183949/http://www.swamp.tec.ufl.edu/images/JApplPhys_81_6513.pdf to http://www.swamp.tec.ufl.edu/images/JApplPhys_81_6513.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]