Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virgo interferometer/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2024 [1].

Virgo interferometer

Nominator(s): Thuiop (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the Virgo interferometer, one of the three interferometric gravitational-wave detectors to have made a detection. This is my first nomination, so I hope everything is up to the standards! Please note that this has been partly peer-reviewed; also, I took the initiative to split part of the article as it had become quite heavy, with the new Ground-based interferometric gravitational-wave search containing informations common to other detectors such as LIGO or KAGRA. Finally, note that I am a member of the Virgo collaboration; I have tried my best to keep to Wikipedia standards for neutrality, but please keep an eye open if I failed somewhere (on the bright side, this also allowed me to get most of the article reviewed by experts). Thuiop (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh

I'll start with the lede.

I was confused by the images. What is the first image supposed to tell me about the interferometer? The article is supposed to be about the Virgo interferometer, but is captioned "The Virgo experiment".

Paragraph 1: Is good.

Paragraph 2: You spell out EGO, which is good. But then you refer to CNRS and INFN, but don't spell out the acronyms, which is bad. The second sentence refers to the Virgo Collaboration but does not explain what this is and its relationship to EGO. The third sentence is clumsy in that it refers to the interferometers, which is fine but then tells us that these other interferometers include two interferometers in the US and in Japan. The double use of the word "interferometer/s" is clumsy. And just where is the Japanese interferometer KAGRA, and what does the acronym refer to? The fourth sentence starts, "Since 2007, Virgo and LIGO..." What is LIGO in the singular sense?

Paragraph 3: Is good.

I will look at the Organization section next. I hope the standard of grammar is not as unsatisfactory as the lede. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments!

Regarding the infobox, I left the original one which is Infobox organization. I think this is fine as the page is both about the detector and the organization, but there is not really a slot for the detector. I am not sure if there is a better one to use? I noticed that the LIGO page uses the telescope one, but I am unsure about that choice since it is not a telescope.

I made some edits taking your comments into account. The only thing I did not change yet is putting the explicit acronym for KAGRA; the name of the detector is basically KAGRA and its non-abbreviated form is very rarely used. The same argument goes for LIGO actually. I can write out the acronym meaning if you still think this is useful but I am not sure it really adds anything to the article. Thuiop (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by XOR'easter

The introduction doesn't seem to reflect what is important about the project. For example, it spends a sentence talking about data-sharing between Virgo and LIGO, which sounds like dull bureaucracy, but it gives no specifics about the "multiple gravitational wave events" that Virgo actually detected. Which is more interesting? Which is more important? And which is discussed in more depth in the article itself?

The section heading "Science case" sounds like grant-proposal-speak. (And I should know; I've worked on enough of the dreadful things in my life...) Moreover, that material is really part of the conceptual background; it's answering the question of why one would want to build a gravitational-wave detector. I'd consider merging that into the "History" section. It could be part of the "Conception" subsection, or inserted just after.

In the final Advanced Virgo configuration, the laser power is expected to be 200 W. This is sourced to a document from 2012. Is it still true? Would it be better to say, e.g., "In the original plan for the final Advanced Virgo configuration, the laser power was expected to be 200 W"?

The first detection of a gravitational signal by Virgo took place at the beginning of the second observing run (O2), as Virgo was absent from the first observing run. What does "absent" mean here? How is the detector "absent" from itself?

The "Outreach" section reads rather like a bad PowerPoint slide. Outreach is good to do, but comes across as pablum when presented as a list of generically positive-sounding activities. Is there enough of substance to say about those events to write serious prose here?

XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @XOR'easter and thank you for your comments.

I agree that the summary could be a bit better, I will see if I can refocus it in a satisfying way.

Regarding the science case section, I thought it made sense for it to be that way as many similar articles are built this way (e.g. James Webb Space Telescope, Vera C. Rubin Observatory, Super-Kamiokande). It was originally longer until I splitted the content towards the new Ground-based interferometric gravitational-wave search page. I guess it could be integrated to the history section, although it may cut the chronological flow.

I agree with your reformulation; plans for the laser are still changing as we speak, so it is pretty hard to get the current plans.

I will make the phrase about O2 clearer.

Now that I look back at it, it does seem a little bit thin. I will try to find some more substantial content for it. Thuiop (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, should this be archived? x q 13:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 48JCL. As this is clearly not moving towards a consensus to promote I will archive it. It needs a thorough copy edit, ideally a run through GoCER - although I realise that the waiting list there is long - and then some further attention at PR. If possible the input of a mentor would also help. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this makes sense to me. I will try to go through GoCER and make some improvements in the meantime. Thanks ! Thuiop (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Graham Beards

Oppose. The prose is not up to FA standard. Graham Beards (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment (and the edits on the article). Would you have any high-level guidelines of where to start if I want to improve it ? Thuiop (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a good place to start: User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Graham Beards (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will definitely have a look. Thuiop (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.