Wikipedia:Peer review/Virgo interferometer/archive1

Virgo interferometer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

Hello, I am listing this article on which I have been working on during the past year, with the goal of bringing it to the FA level. I am usually more active on the French Wikipedia instance and am less familiar on the exact criteria around here; I would be very happy to get some feedback. A particular thing I am thinking about: I introduced a Data Analysis section, which is relevant to the article, but the article has grown quite a bit. I am thinking about splitting it, but I do not know how this works related to FA (does the split off article count?); in the case it is split, I would also link it from the LIGO page as it is relevant to both experiments. Side note: there is one thing that I definitely intend to change, which is the diagram with the French labels; I have prepared a replacement but am still getting feedback from other people on it, so you can ignore it for the time being. EDIT : The replacement has been done.

Thanks, Thuiop (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thuiop, I am taking this one up and will post my comments by Sunday. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, I said I would get my comments in by Sunday but couldn't, I will post all of them by tomorrow. I first went through the sources, as a first step, I would suggest translating the titles of all the sources and the journals/books they are drawn from. Another thing I would like to note is that the article size is ~150,000 bytes, which is quite large. Anything above 100,000 is not viewed favorably and reviewers suggest splitting the article. So we are gonna have to trim this significantly, tough task but can be done. Looking forward to working on this and getting your comments, Thuiop. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Matarisvan, and thanks for your interest ! Thanks for the suggestion regarding the sources, I will do that.

Regarding the size of the article, indeed I feared it might be an issue ; this is part of the reason I thought about splitting the data analysis section. This should already save around 30000 bytes (minus the text needed to replace it). I will start thinking about other places where the article could be trimmed. Thuiop (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thuiop and @Matarisvan, just to clarify, the 100,000-character limit applies to readable prose size. The current readable prose size is 53863 characters (9086 words), which is on the long side, but might also be justified depending on the importance of the topic. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. This make more sense, thanks. I think splitting the data analysis section may still be warranted but I'm glad that I do not need to worry too much about the length. Thuiop (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is very helpful because we won't have to worry too much about trimming the size anymore. Matarisvan (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is huge so when I have gone through it fully I keep forgetting what issues I spotted. Which is why I will be going section wise. As a first thought, I would suggest you change all your left oriented images to right orientation, as that is the convention for FA level articles. Because I did not know, I had not done this change, so I think the reviewers got irked early on and that led to the review failing. Which is why I would suggest you don't repeat this error.

Done. Also translated titles for all the non-english references Thuiop (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Could you also translate the journal title Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, I assume it means 'Journal of the King's Purssian Academy of Sciences'? It is source #10. I will get back soon with more comments. Matarisvan (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Since we do have the coordinates, can we put in a map?
Trim the staff column in the infobox to only 'About 850 people'.
Can we change the Affiliations column to just 'LVK (LIGO, KAGRA and Virgo Collaboration)?
What do you mean by 'the Virgo Collaboration regroups all the researchers'?
Can we change all occurrences of Virgo Collaboration to just Virgo?

More comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. EDIT : did it, but this does take a lot of place in the infobox.
The reason I did not do this in the first place is that those 850 people do not represent the staff working at the detector, only people who are part of the collaboration ; perhaps I should also add the on-site staff.
Yes.
Exactly what is written. The Virgo Collaboration is an entity built for congregating the researchers working on Virgo.
I would like to avoid this, as there may be confusion between the Virgo Collaboration and the dectector Virgo. While the collaboration can informally be called "Virgo", I don't think it hurts to be precise here. Besides, it is not repeated that many times through the article.

Thuiop (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30 instances of the words 'Virgo Collaboration'. Seems to be too much, you should use it the first time only & use just Virgo all the other times. Matarisvan (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of these 30 instances, 21 are within the references (mostly because "The Virgo Collaboration" is listed as an author on some papers), and for the 9 in the main body, there is 1 in the intro (summarizing what the Virgo Collaboration is), 3 in the Organization section (which is about describing the organisational structure, so you ought to be precise ; also actually one of those is "LIGO-Virgo Collaboration" which is a distinct entity), 3 are in the infobox, and the remaining two are scattered within the article. So overall, this seems an acceptable number to me (but please feel free to comment if you think that one of these particular instances should be switched to just "Virgo". Thuiop (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest changing 'regrouping' to 'which consolidates'. The grammar comes off better, and 'regrouping' is very confusing. Matarisvan (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. This is probably a false friend, in French it does not seem strange. I have replaced it by "consolidates" in one place and "gathers" in another. Thuiop (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much better now.

New comments, @Thuiop:

'The idea of a large interferometric detector began to gain credibility': By when? Late 20th century? 1980s? You should specify.

I thought this would be clear since 1985 is mentioned after but I edited to clarify.

'was imagined by': Consider changing to 'was conceptualized by'.

Done.

'The instrument reached its planned design sensitivity to gravitational wave signals': Consider changing to 'The instrument successfully reached its planned design sensitivity to gravitational wave signals'.

Done.

'Some of these runs were done in coincidence with': Consider changing to 'Some of these runs were done simultaneously with'.

Done.

Link to glass fibre, thermal noise (Jonson-Nyquist noise).

Done for glass fiber, not for thermal noise as this is not Johnson–Nyquist noise here.

Link to adaptive optics.

Done.

Has the 200W design power been achieved? The report linked is from 2012, it has been 12 years since, so an update is in order.

No, it has not yet, this is further detailed in the section dedicated to the laser.

'confirmed by non-gravitational means': What are these?

Edited for more details.

Link to megaparsec on first use.

Done.

I would suggest trimming a lot of the science case section, the information there would be useful in a gravitational wave article, but not in this article. You should just retain the 'Moreover, Advanced Virgo may be...' and the 'The polarizations can only...' paragraphs, with the brief background needed.

Unsure about that. This is specific to what Virgo (and similar detectors such as LIGO or KAGRA) can/aim to detect; other detectors such as LISA would target other sources, so I find it useful to tell apart. This was also built as context for the Data Analysis section, thus this point may be related to splitting the DA from the article; I guess this could be at home in an article about ground-based GW detectors. I will leave it as it is currently but I am open to discuss it further.

In the general design subsection, you have two uncited paragraphs. You should add citations for them.

Will do.

More comments soon.

Source review

Source #11: Link to Weber & Physical Review Letters.
Source #12: Link to Universe (journal).
Source #13: Link to Adalberto Giazotto, add Turin as the publication location.
Source #14: Add Philippe as the first name for Tourrenc, add ego-gw.it as the website. Link to Alain Brillet.
Source #15: Link to Nuclear Physics B.
Source #18: Link to Bernad F. Schutz, Living Reviews in Relativity.
Source #21: Link to Journal of Instrumentation.
Source #22: Link to Classical and Quantum Gravity.
Source #25: Add Nikhef as the website.
Source #27: Add Nature as the wesbite, add Elizabeth Gibney as the author and link to her article.
Source #28: Link to The Astrophysical Journal.
Source #29: Remove LIGO & Virgo, they are not the co-authors but the institutions to which the lead author, BP Abbott, belongs.
Source #30: Remove EPS-HEP2019, most people don't know about it, instead add CERN as the website.
Source #32: Link to Proceedings of SPIE.
Source #35: Add ego-gw.it as the website.
Source #38: Link to Comptes Rendus Physique (should point to Comptes rendus de l'Academie des Sciences).
Source #40: Remove LIGO, it is not the co-author but the institution to which the lead author belongs. Link to Physical Review D.
Source #44: Link to Science (journal).
Source #49: Remove LVK, not co-author.
Source #50: Link to Reports on Progress in Physics.
Source #52: Link to Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.
Source #56: Remove LVK, not co-authors.
Source #58: Link to Journal of High Energy Physics.
Source #63: Link to General Relativity and Gravitation.
Source #64: Link to Physics Letters B.
Source #68: Link to Physical Review X.
Source #72: Link to the Monthly Notices of the Astronomical Society.
Source #74: Link to Nature (journal).
Source #77: Link to Abhay Ashtekar.
Source #81: Add artemis.oca.eu as the website.
Source #83: Add gwic.ligo.org as the website.
Source #84: Link to Astroparticle Physics.
Source #85: Link is dead, add archive.org link.
Source #86: Use normal notation for journal name, not abbreviation. You must be consistent.
Source #87: Link to Optics Letters.
Source #94: Link to Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
Source #104: Link to Physica Scripta.
Source #106: Will not be accepted, you will need a reliable source.
Source #108: Link to Applied Optics.
Source #109: Link to Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
Source #128 and 129: Consider removing LVK, only arXiv lists them as co-authors, but IOP and Harvard ADS don't.

This was just formatting, I will have to do spot checks later. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thourough review ; I started implenting these. I actually think that the collaborations should be left in the author fields for the various APS journal publications ; these are not the affiliations, but an optional field specifically for collaborations which is allowed by these journals. Thuiop (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed those, except for removing LVK as author (see comment above), adding websites (these are formatted with the book citation model currently which does not include website ; I can change it to tech report if you want but I am unsure what this adds). Thuiop (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second glance, this is not really necessary. Matarisvan (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what is the Polini 2021 source doing at the top of the article? I believe it is a manual error, you should fix it. Also, consider adding a short description using the shortdesc template. Matarisvan (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. This is the second time it happens to me for some reason, I fixed it now. Thuiop (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should check out the new comments above the formatting section too. Matarisvan (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan I have thought a bit about your suggestion of separating the science case from this article; I was thinking of having a "Ground-based gravitational wave detector" article (unsure of what the exact title should be; I want this to match LIGO, Virgo and KAGRA, but not LISA, and not things like Weber bars), which would contain the science case, the "general principle" and the data analysis section, as those are mostly common to all current interferometer detectors. What do you think ? Thuiop (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Z1720

@Thuiop: It has been over a month since the last comment. Are you ready to close this PR and nominate the article to FAC? Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hey, thanks for your interest. I have been working in the background on the last proposal I made (just above your comment) ; I have made quite a bit of progress but got caught up on some other Wikipedia activities on the French instance. I should be resuming work on this pretty soon ; this will probably result in some parts of the Virgo Interferometer article to be moved to the new article and replaced by a summary. Anyhow, it does not seem like there will be much more comments here, so I am fine with closing this and going to the FAC directly once I am finished. Thuiop (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]