Talk:Localization-protected quantum order

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 4 August 2019 by reviewer Worldbruce (talk · contribs).

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Your review of Draft:Localization Protected Quantum Order

This discussion started on my talk page after the first decline of this submission ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kvng,

You recently reviewed and rejected the submission Draft:Localization Protected Quantum Order (LPQO) on the grounds that neologisms are not accepted as Wikipedia entries and because you were unable to find widespread coverage of the topic outside the original paper. As an expert on this subject matter, I urge you to reconsider.

LPQO is a recently introduced concept in physics that outlines how one should define and understand phases of matter for systems out-of-equilibrium, an idea as fundamental as long-standing definitions for equilibrium phases of matter. Besides being of fundamental importance, this concept has already found widespread application --- for example, the recent discovery of "time crystals", a new exotic phase of matter, is an example of LPQO. As such, given the foundational nature of this idea, I strongly believe that a colloquial Wikipedia page on this topic will be of great use to the physics community and budding physics enthusiasts. I am happy to refer you to leading physics professors at top institutions if you wish to consult them about this.

You also mention that you were unable to find coverage of this topic outside the original paper. However, the original paper has been cited over 250 times, and these citations certainly count as "independent, reliable published sources" making use of the concept of LPQO. Can you explain why these citations are insufficient to meet the criterion of "coverage"?

In general, physicists routinely coin new words, "neologisms", to define new concepts (some recent examples, all with Wikipedia pages, include "Topological Order", "Quantum Hall Effect", "Fracton" to name a few). These concepts then find their way into the standard canon of physics knowledge and help develop various applications. Wikipedia pages explaining these concepts in a more accessible manner serve a useful purpose both to the general public and students in the field. In particular, given the generally uneven coverage of physics topics in Wikipedia, it is my strong belief, shared by several in the physics community, that Wikipedia should encourage the publication of such articles when experts in the field take the time to draft them.

Thank you for your consideration, Vkhemani16 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)VKhemani16[reply]

Please see WP:42. We want to see at least two reliable sources covering the subject. I didn't find exact mention of LPQO in any other reliable sources including the papers that cite the original. Did I make a mistake with Google Scholar?

If you want coverage of topics like this in Wikipedia, first encourage others to write other papers and articles about them. Wikipedia does not want to be the driver of these developments. We don't want to be the first to cover a topic. See WP:TOOSOON for details and discussion.

As a procedural matter, I do not usually rereview drafts unless I'm convinced I've overlooked something. You seem to be confirming that there's only one paper so that doesn't seem to be the case here. If you want a second opinion, just resubmit the draft and another reviewer will take another look in a few weeks. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. No, I am certainly not confirming that there is only one paper that mentions LPQO. There may have been been a mistake with how you did your Google Scholar search, but several of the 250+ citing articles use the exact phrase. You mentioned the need for at least two other independent sources using this term. Here are three published articles (by authors other than the authors of the original paper) which use the exact phrase:

1. Parameswaran and Vasseur, Many-Body Localization, Symmetry and Topology, Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol 81, Number 8 (2018) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/aac9ed/meta

2. Abanin and Papic, Recent Progress in Many Body Localization, Annaler der physik Volume 529 Issue 7 (2017) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.201700169

3. Kjall, Bardarson, Pollmann, Many Body Localization in a Disodered Quantum Ising Chain, Physical Review Letters 113, 10724 (2014) https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.107204

The third reference is behind a paywall, but you can see that the exact phrase in the abstract itself which should be publicly accessible. Vkhemani16 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Vkhemani16[reply]

I have revisited Google Scholar and still find little evidence of usage of this term elsewhere. I'm going to leave it to your next reviewer to determine whether the evidence you provide here gets it over the bar. Before resubmitting, please consider improving the article to demonstrate wide acceptance of the terminology possibly by including the above as new references. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand your threshold better, can I get you to take a look at the term "eigenstate order" on Google Scholar? Is that in widespread enough use? If so, I am happy to switch the title of the article to it. The term LPQO is technically more precise but it is - in actual applications - exactly the same idea as "eigenstate order". If "eigenstate order" also does not pass the bar, I will pass on creating this entry and add the material to related entries elsewhere. Vkhemani16 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Vkhemani16[reply]

I don't see a WP:NEO issue with "eigenstate order". You don't necessarily need to rename or rewrite the draft. Just explain and mention eigenstate order in the lead and include some references for this angle. We can create an eigenstate order WP:REDIRECT so readers will find the material regardless of what terminology is used. ~Kvng (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I somehow missed the fact that you had responded with this. I have edited the lead to mention eigenstate order front and center, along with references, and most of the section subheadings use and explain this terminology. I hope this is now sufficient for approval!

Copying my afc comment here (slightly expanded) to centralize the discussion: I have looked over this article. It looks well written and covers the major aspects of this developing topic fairly well. One of the challenges of the topic is that different physicists call LPQO by different names and may emphasize different aspects of these systems, such as LIOMs in the secondary review [1]. Comparing the article content to discussions in review articles such as the [2] and [3] shows the article to be fairly neutral and in particular, I think the author's works have reasonably due weight. Discussion in these reviews shows the topic to be notable. A weakness of the current article is that it leans too heavily on primary sources, and citations to multiple papers at once prevents traceability of the summary here to the original secondary source; both can be indicative of some WP:SYNTHESIS problems. But overall, I think this article is ready for mainspace and can continue to be improved there. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]