134:. I disagree that one paragraph for the introduction is enough to make an article lose FA status, are we really supposed to add a useless paragraph because someone arbitrarily decided this rule for Special Relativity without reading this article??? I think the structure is adequate, and the diagrams are good/excellent. I also disagree with the technical objection that Joke makes, it's not possible to do calculation in non-inertial frames, it's formally only possible to do calculations in inertial frames, and then work out what that looks like from a non-inertial frame. It's got good references. I think it's a featured article, but not suitable for the front page (too technical). I vote for.
248:
Furthermore, the article is not stable and is continually undergoing insertion and deletion of material with limited claims to the verifiability of such material. This leads to some subtle and sometimes rather serious biases being introduced into the article (and its ancillary articles as well). As
81:
Needs a copy-edit. In particular, please merge some of the stubby little paragraphs, and reword the unencycopedic expressions such as 'As we shall see'. It's not a transcription of an oral presentation, or a fireside chat. Otherwise, it has a lot going for it. The animation is ... amazing!
101:
Reading through it, there is little sense of where the article is going. One (shortish) section seems to haphazardly follow another. Some sections, like "Relativity and unifying
Electromagnetism" are embarassingly small. The structure of the article really needs to be better thought
243:
While I have as of yet no edits in en:Knowledge (XXG) article space, this is an article I've been following for some time. I question the comprehensiveness of the article, especially as it barely addresses a central point that readers deserve to have answered, namely
203:(a big thick book if you ever wanted one). Furthermore, a great many textbooks treat the second postulate as an independent case from the first one. By some reasoning, I suppose one could consider it a consequence or a "special case", but it is such an
108:
I'm not sure that special relativity applies only to inertial frames of reference. Like
Newtonian mechanics, it seems perfectly possible to do calculations from non-inertial frames of reference, should one desire. It sure doesn't include gravity,
193:
is "flat" in a sense which does not depend upon the specific cause of curvature in
General Relativity. Statements like "the difference between SR and GR is that SR does not cover accelerations" are incorrect. SR was
198:
to describe situations involving accelerations, like the radiation from an accelerated charge. The real distinction is that SR spacetime is flat, while GR spacetime can be curved. See Misner, Taylor and
Wheeler's
34:
357:
A technical subject such as special relativity with an extensive number of possible references deserves an article that includes explicit in-line citations to its references, including page numbers. --
37:
and the main objection was lack of references, which has since been fixed. Comprehensive and excellently illustrated, and although it is highly technical there is a daughter article
54:. Knowledge (XXG) guidelines state that the longer the article, the longer the introduction should be. There should be two or three solid paragraphs in introduction, not just one.
185:
Needs a copy edit and a thorough work-over by a person who cares to get
English prose really, really right. The pictures, however, are great. I should note that "flat spacetime"
160:"...frames in flat spacetime, where the effects of gravity can be ignored." is too complicated. Flat space time is a concept of general relativity not of special relativity.
143:
If there's enough information on the subject to have an article that's so long, there's enough information that can reasonably be placed into the introduction.
105:
The history article is poor. I don't think having a separate article is any excuse for not having a (short, but good) history section in the main article.
17:
361:
233:
211:
176:
147:
138:
124:
86:
76:
58:
45:
38:
207:
special case that most books pull it out and treat it separately. (I'm almost sure
Halliday and Resnick do, for example.)
94:
It's a fine article, I don't think it is FA material yet. Here are some brief comments, which are by no means exhaustive:
258:
No clear attempt to base statements on the references provided (this article is crying out for in-line references)
166:"Second postulate (invariance of c)" is a consequence of the first one. Light is an electromagnetic wave.
163:"the state of inertial motion." is unclear. Why not velocity instead of this very pedantic formulation.
41:. Note that despite my username, I am not actually a physicist and did not contribute to this article.
225:
112:
The section about tests ("status") of special relativity should probably be moved up and emphasized.
73:
27:
120:
So, I think it is a good article but needs a fair amount of work to meet today's FA criteria. –
190:
246:
What is the value of special relativity within the context of today's theoretical physics?
220:
135:
358:
296:
Claim of
Einstein unsourced, potentially irrelevant to later or current 'consequences'
255:
Poor separation of the physical, historical, and philosophical aspects of the subject
42:
208:
121:
285:
Historical baggage about aether should be placed in a separate section or article
277:
Undefined and potentially confusing concepts (observer, material object) included
144:
69:
55:
83:
249:
I see it, there are three interrelated issues that should be dealt with:
173:
252:
Overall structure of the article lacks proper cohesion and direction
315:"The geometry of space-time" and "Physics in spacetime" sections
318:
Potentially valuable information presented without clear context
274:
Important concepts (e.g. symmetry, Maxwell's equations) left out
66:
172:
That's all for today. I'll have other comments later on.
189:
what distinguishes
Special Relativity from General: the
343:
Will benefit greatly from an overall coherent structure
332:
Could be merged with much needed section about symmetry
324:
Will benefit greatly from an overall coherent structure
304:
Notational issues not directly relevant to this article
265:
Particluar issues and/or suggestions for improvement:
288:
Could be expanded to address the concept of symmetry
219:
per above, needs some improvement in prose. Thanks!
329:"Relativity and unifying electromagnetism" section
271:Does not correlate well with the rest of article
282:"Lack of an absolute reference frame" section
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
307:Confusing and unencyclopedic, unreferenced
354:Choice of jounal articles is questionable
301:"Relativistic mass" and "Force" sections
7:
351:References to textbooks appear solid
24:
310:These sections should be removed
39:Special relativity for beginners
1:
234:17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
212:08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
177:09:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
148:18:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
139:04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
125:16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
87:12:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
77:10:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
59:05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
46:04:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
157:for the following reasons:
115:The animation is very cool.
72:suggestion is followed up.
382:
35:was nominated back in 2004
362:03:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
340:Lacks strong conclusion
293:"Consequences" section
348:"References" section
321:Appears too technical
64:Conditional Support
28:Special relativity
337:"Status" section
232:
373:
229:
223:
191:Minkowski metric
381:
380:
376:
375:
374:
372:
371:
370:
227:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
379:
377:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
355:
352:
346:
345:
344:
341:
335:
334:
333:
327:
326:
325:
322:
319:
313:
312:
311:
308:
305:
299:
298:
297:
291:
290:
289:
286:
280:
279:
278:
275:
272:
268:Intro section
262:
261:
260:
259:
256:
253:
237:
236:
214:
170:
169:
168:
167:
164:
161:
152:
151:
150:
128:
127:
118:
117:
116:
113:
110:
106:
103:
96:
95:
89:
79:
74:Thethinredline
61:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
378:
363:
360:
356:
353:
350:
349:
347:
342:
339:
338:
336:
331:
330:
328:
323:
320:
317:
316:
314:
309:
306:
303:
302:
300:
295:
294:
292:
287:
284:
283:
281:
276:
273:
270:
269:
267:
266:
264:
263:
257:
254:
251:
250:
247:
242:
241:Strong Object
239:
238:
235:
230:
222:
218:
215:
213:
210:
206:
202:
197:
192:
188:
184:
181:
180:
179:
178:
175:
165:
162:
159:
158:
156:
153:
149:
146:
142:
141:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:
126:
123:
119:
114:
111:
107:
104:
100:
99:
98:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
68:
65:
62:
60:
57:
53:
50:
49:
48:
47:
44:
40:
36:
29:
26:
19:
245:
240:
216:
204:
200:
195:
186:
182:
171:
154:
131:
91:
63:
51:
32:
201:Gravitation
221:Flcelloguy
136:WolfKeeper
359:Tim Shuba
205:important
196:invented
70:Fieari's
43:Redquark
209:Anville
132:Support
109:though.
217:Object
183:Object
155:Object
145:Fieari
92:Oppose
56:Fieari
52:Object
228:note?
33:This
16:<
122:Joke
102:out.
84:Tony
67:iff
226:A
187:is
174:Vb
231:)
224:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.