100:
I like how the lead pulls in some of the earliest history after hitting the basic properties, although it kinda shifts rapidly into quantum, which is to some extent unavoidable. But in the sentence starting "Following the development of quantum mechanics...", it isn't clear that the second statement
123:
I think that fundamental forces are now called fundamental interactions primarily because they are mediated by gauge bosons rather than anything to do with symmetry. That last paragraph could safely end before mentioning 4-momentum, QED, or
Noether's
44:
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like additional input on what needs to be done to bring this article up to FA standards. Also, please check for general readability, errors, and places where clarity is needed.
109:
Avoid unnecessarily roundabout wording, such as, "Philosophical development of the concept of a force proceeded through the work of
Aristotle." That just says, "Aristotle's philosophy further developed the concept of
116:
The last paragraph is so condensed, there's too much that would require clicking through to other articles to mean anything to the average reader. Why mention that
Coulomb used a
101:
follows from the first. Also, I think idea of forces being mediated by gauge bosons needs more than one sentence to be clear, even when condensed down in the lead.
75:
120:
when the inverse square law isn't even elaborated upon, or any further info on the history of the electric force given?
21:
56:
67:
134:
52:
17:
113:
I rather think that encyclopedias should avoid too many parentheses, so I've turned some into commas.
137:
131:
87:
60:
27:
117:
83:
71:
79:
130:
More to come later. I'm too slow and will have to do this piecemeal. —
38:
74:
style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click
70:
review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
93:I like to nitpick by section, so here we go:
8:
66:A script has been used to generate a semi-
7:
35:
1:
138:20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
88:06:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
61:10:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
28:Knowledge:Peer review/Force
153:
18:Knowledge:Peer review
26:(Redirected from
144:
53:ScienceApologist
31:
152:
151:
147:
146:
145:
143:
142:
141:
118:torsion balance
86:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
150:
148:
128:
127:
126:
125:
121:
114:
111:
104:
103:
102:
91:
90:
82:
48:
41:
36:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
149:
140:
139:
136:
133:
132:Laura Scudder
122:
119:
115:
112:
108:
107:
105:
99:
98:
96:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
64:
63:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
40:
37:
29:
23:
19:
129:
92:
51:
47:
43:
78:. Thanks,
68:automated
49:Thanks,
124:theorem.
106:History
20: |
110:force."
97:Lead
72:house
39:Force
22:Force
16:<
76:here
57:talk
80:APR
59:)
135:☎
84:t
55:(
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.