Wikipedia:Peer review/New SI definitions/archive1

New SI definitions

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to submit it as a Good Article

Thanks, Martinvl (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

I will post a full review at some point in the next day or so. For now, I think you should try to find a different title for the article. "New SI definitions" does not comply with the precise language guidelines. It is also somewhat misleading, as the definitions in question are proposed, not accepted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cryptic 62 - Thank you for your post. May I suggest as a title "Proposed redefinition of SI base units" as an alternative title? Martinvl (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Aye, that seems reasonable. At some point it may be necessary to disambiguate by including the year of the proposal, but for now it doesn't appear to be problematic. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC) done - the article will probably need a rewrite in late 2014

• Background to the proposal of new SI definitions This section title can and should be shortened to Background done
• Looking at the table of contents, it is not immediately clear to me how The proposals and Proposed changes to the base units are different. Why are there two top-level sections about the same thing? done - renamed second section "Impact on base unit definitions". I might have to enlarge the intoductory paragraph
• Maybe I'm missing something, but there is a lot of content in Impact on reproducibility that does not appear to be related to reproducibility. The word "reproducibility" itself doesn't even appear in the section, which obscures any relationship there might be between the text and the title. - to be addressed
• The caption for File:Prototype mass drifts.jpg is far too long. See WP:CAPTION for ideas on how to write good captions. done
• "a fundamental change - the current definition" The correct punctuation mark here is the emdash "—". See WP:DASH for more details. - to be addressed
• I believe that the Criticism section can and should be organized by grouping together related criticisms, rather than by author. There are several reasons for this: - done
  • It will make it easier to elaborate on specific points, such as "economic damage due to increased transaction costs", which is a bit mysterious.
  • It will allow you to incorporate comments from other sources without needing to create a new paragraph for each one.
  • It will reduce the need for bulleted lists, which the article relies quite heavily upon.
• On a related note, when introducing commentary from a specific author, it is helpful to establish some context as to why the author's opinion is relevant. Sometimes this isn't made clear in the source, which is a bit annoying, but in Leonard 2010 there is a link which says "Show affiliations", which indicates that he is a mechanical engineer. - names of specific authors have been removed from the text

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Garamond Lethe

(This is my first time commenting in this forum; I'd appreciate any feedback you have on my comments.)

Looks good to me! Regardless of whether a particular comment is "right" or "wrong", you've highlighted very specific ideas, which will help generate focused discussion on how to improve the article. "The article isn't very well written" is a good example of useless feedback, and you've done exactly the opposite. Wikipedia always needs more detail-oriented reviewers, so I hope you keep at it! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Doing...

Lead

1. "Although the units themselves form a coherent system, the definitions do not." Not sure what "coherent" implies in this context. - Wikilinked to a new article
2. "it has been argued" Passive voice. - done
3. Caption: "The seven SI base units". Perhaps "The seven current base units"? (Or would "existing" be better?) I really like this diagram, but it's very hard to understand until you've gotten a significant way into the article. Perhaps expand the caption to give an example how the figure is to be read? "The diagram shows, for example, how foo is defined in terms of bar and baz, the formulas for each being....". It's a little wordy, but if the reader understand this diagram when perusing the lead then they'll have no trouble understanding the rest of the article. - done - captions rewritten

Background to the proposal of new SI definitions

1. Just "Background" is probably sufficient, but either works. done
2. I wikified the first use of International System of Units. A small bit of context (half-dozen words at most) would be useful here: which of the bodies under discussion created the system? - done
3. "small drifts which could be as high as" Perhaps a few words after "small drifts", starting with "possibly due to...". Just a teaser is fine. - done - added a citation identifying possible causes
4. "temperatures below 20 K and for temperatures above 1300 K." I don't know what the manual of style says (and you should defer to it, of course), but listing the first temperature as "20 Kelvins (K)" might help readers who haven't had a physics class for a few years. done

Proposals

1. Perhaps wikify joule, columb, mole, etc. I like how you've spelled out the units here as well as providing the symbols. - done
2. "It is proposed". Passive voice. - done
3. I like how you handled the notation for the capital "X", but using the lower-case "x" for multiplication immediately following it is a little confusing. Ah, wait, you did use the multiplication sign – it's either the character or my browser's rendering that is the issue. The center dot is used elsewhere in the article for multiplication. Perhaps use that throughout? - The symbol "×" is used when multiplying numbers, the middot when multipyling units. This is in accordance with the SI brochure. According to the SI brochure, either "kWh" or "kW·h are acceptable.

Proposed changes to the base units

1. I'm confused here as to what exactly a proposal is. Are the "Proposed changes to the base units" several separate proposals? How do these proposals relate to the "Proposals" in the previous section? - done - used the singular
2. I don't know that you need to a add a lot of detail about the parliamentary workings of the CCU; changing the section headers might suffice. - My intention in including the "parliamentary workings" is twofold: to show that the authors of the proposals are working under the authority delegated to them by national governments and that a transparent system of checks and balances is in place
3. "It is proposed". Passive voice. - done
4. "become more rigorous." Should be "would become"? - replaced with "is more rigorously defined
5. "tightening up" A bit colloquial. (Not a big deal.) - reworded using the word "rigorous"
6. "easier to realise in practice." Perhaps "easier to realise." as "in practice" ends the previous clause. - done
7. It's obvious that all of these proposals are coming from the CCU document (collection of proposals?); perhaps add references where each proposal can be found in the document? I don't think the benefit here will be people using this page as an index to the document. Rather, I think it will help the reader understand that all of these proposals are coming from a single document (if that's the case). The {{rp}} template might be useful here in cutting down on the clutter this would add. - done
8. "One of the following must change". Would like to see a cite for this if it isn't covered by my previous comment. - to be addressed

Impact on reproducibility

1. "but it is unsuitable as it can only be measured with an uncertainty of 10−4" Not sure what the "it" is pointing to. - done
2. "uncertainty of 10−4", "uncertainty of 5 × 10−8". I'm not familiar with the word "uncertainty" in this context. I think you're referring to accuracy, although this may imply something about precision as well. If the sources use "uncertainty" then I'll get over it, I guess.... - I was following the literature - see my notes later
3. "it is merely an assurance" Does "it" refer to "practice"? - reworded
4. "Physical constants directly related" Section title should be changed to reflect the contents of the table. - to be addressed
5. "Relative uncertainty" table. I like this a lot; visually showing how "exact" is moving around does a lot to clarify what these proposals are doing. However, the "uncertainty" value doesn't mean much without the context of the order of magnitude of the value of the definition (or perhaps I've misunderstood?). Could you add the proposed values to this table as well? Even better, the values +/- the uncertainty, if that's appropriate? - reworded
6. "Leonard has proposed" Introduce who this is. - names of specific authros have been removed from the text
7. Reproducibility isn't discussed. Can probably be fixed by changing the title to "Changes in precision" or "Changes in allowable measurement uncertainty". - names of specific authors have been removed from the text

Acceptance

1. "The various committees" More detail possible here? - replaced "committees" with ""consultative committees" and added a definition of "consultative committees" in the preceding sentence
2. "relative standard uncertainty" Wikilink or note describing what this means? - done

Criticism

1. "Price has argued" Introduce Price. (Also Pavese.) - names of specific authors have been removed from the text

References

Will take a look at these later.

Overall impressions

1. I don't think the article in its current form communicates why it's important for definitions to be coherent as well as units. If this information is available, I'd like to see it in an "Impetus for change" section following the "Background" section (and perhaps move some of the information in "Background" into "Impetus").
2. There are a few bits of information that are well-sourced and relevant but aren't integrated well into the article, e.g., the paragraph detailing the "Quantum SI System". I don't think these need to be addressed for GA, but if you'd ultimately like to take this to FA then I'd like to make another pass and look specifically at how the article flows.
3. Overall, very good work and I don't expect any difficulty at all at GA.

Notes by Martinvl

I have taken the liberty of adding an in-line note to each point green once the point has been addressed or red before it has been addressed as I believe that this is the easiest way to keep track of my response. Martinvl (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Free free to also use WONTFIX. These (well, mine at least) are only suggestions. Garamond Lethet
c 17:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly an option - I planned to denote it by disagree because .... (in green so that there is a record that it has been addressed). (The use of red is really to create a tick-box of outstanding items. When I create a new document using an old one as a template, I usually colour all the original text red and as I address each item, I change the colour appropriately) Martinvl (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I was more concerned about making sure you understood (and that you understood that I understood) that these were nonbinding suggestions. The red/green works fine for me. Garamond Lethet
c 18:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of "uncertainty"

I have wikilinked the term "uncertainty", but the links to "relative uncertainty" are not very good. Is it worth cross-referencing the International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms for these terms? I would do this via the "Notes" section with the following text:

The following terms are defined in International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms:

• standard measurement uncertainty - definintion 2.30
• relative standard measurement uncertainty - definition 2.32
• etc etc.

Is this appropriate, or is this overkill? Martinvl (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm amused that you're asking the person who sourced ten different archaic abbreviations of kilometres per hour about overkill.... I would find the proposed note to be a huge help in understanding the article, and since you're linking to a pdf I don't see the need to include the definitions themselves in the article. I think you've struck exactly the right balance here. Garamond Lethet
c 18:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That's really a fascinating document. Thanks for pointing it out. Garamond Lethet
c 18:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

All done

I have now implemented the changes suggested by both User:Garamond Lethe and User:Cryptic C62 and added a little more material that was triggered by their observations. May I thank you both for the time that you have taken to do this review. I will give it a day or two for any further feedback before submitting it for a GA artcile review. Martinvl (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)