Talk:Elastic recoil detection#Initial discussion

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=

{{WikiProject Physics|importance=low}}

}}

Initial discussion

There is a discussion of recent changes to this article here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&oldid=605821588#Elastic_recoil_detection]. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

:Added section header. Evensteven (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting that the discussion at the Project talk page be continued here.

Current note: I am not satisfied that my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elastic_recoil_detection&diff=605925094&oldid=605923021|"step 7" edit] is correct. The article text I replaced referred to the hand reference I used to create the replacement citation, but that hand reference included no article title, and the article title that the text mentioned is identical to another much-quoted citation from some of the same authors, same journal, same year (different pages). This could use an expert eye. Evensteven (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

:I am not happy about the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elastic_recoil_detection&diff=605928493&oldid=605925094| step 8 edit] either. While it does remove the last hand reference, it is not clear what the target of the citation is. The thing is cited twice, and appears to be an animation, but there is not enough info to fire it up. In addition, the two citations don't seem to me to be in places where a single animation would suffice (but I can't really tell for sure). Finally, the article text they are attached to almost seem like captions rather than sentences or paragraphs. All in all, this looks like incomplete placeholder material. Now that's it present in the article history, where we can always get it back later, I am going to feel free to delete it as I edit more text, unless someone says something first. Evensteven (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits seem to be going in the direction of where I was headed next, and since re-organization and rewrite benefit from a greater expertise, I think I'll hand it off to the rest of you for now. Looks like it's in solid hands. Evensteven (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)