Talk:B2FH paper

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Publications Taskforce.

Astronomy Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup

Hopefully this article is not deleted, as there is a French version of the article as well DAID 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, there is an entire week long conference celebrating 50 years since the publication of this paper at CalTech this summer, so it is fair to say it deserves a wiki DAID 01:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the cleanup tag, which it still should have, because to a layman the original version I tagged would appear to have been nonsense. (not everyone googles or is into physics) I figured it needed cleaning and this would prevent it from getting tagged as delete, as your first version was quite rought and a bit, well, chaotic. Pharmboy 01:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that it was nonsense, as before I created the article I checked other Wiki languages to see if the article existed on any of those, which you may see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/B2FH. Mine was a translation of this article, with every sentance reworded for clarity, with the addition of factual corrections and context added in. I am surprised that a translation of an article which has been up for 8 months and not tagged for cleanup was tagged for cleanup within a couple hours. This wiki is not intended to rehash the contents of the paper, as much of its contents is in other wikis, only to serve as a historical marker. DAID 09:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it may have been interpreted as such, it isn't a comment on you. Not everyone has a PhD in physics. It is still a single paragraph, and technically needs some cleaning, expanding, organizing. It isn't personal, but the purpose is to make the article accessible to the layman. Sometimes articles go for months that need to be tagged. Sometimes some of us just sit and check articles as they are being made to add tags to. It is always to be helpful, not spiteful. Pharmboy 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about the comment on my writing. I admit that the text you posted for cleanup was not very good. I was still in the middle of editing it when the cleanup post was made, and so I took it down because I was still in the process of reviewing the article and making corrections. At this point, I am temporarily done with my editing, although I would like to add more in the future. If you feel the current version is still not clear and could use a notable amount of editing, please mark it for cleanup again. DAID 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I think it needs is a bit of explaining in plain english, so someone like me (who actually is a armchair physics buff) has a better idea of what you are writing about. It just needs more info to make it more accessible to average people with some interest. I would rather see the info and understand it than tag it. Pharmboy 01:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cleanup. Now even I have an idea of what it means ;) Pharmboy 15:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleosynthesis processes

I believe another section should be added which details both the processes outlined in the paper, and their contemporary counter-parts. However, in some cases, such as the alpha-process, this is easier said than done, so I have yet to complete this task. DAID 09:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B²FH → B2FH paper — Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC) for the same reason Alpher–Bethe–Gamow paper is located there and not at Alpher–Bethe–Gamow. (The title would be display as "B²FH paper" through {{DISPLAYTITLE:B<sup>2</sup>FH paper}}.) I'd to a slight rewrite after the move. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support title should not be using a special character. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm assuming it's ok for me to support this, even though I relisted it over a week ago; if it's not, feel free to strike this. Anyway, seems clear that it should be B²FH paper, as it is about a certain paper. Would have non-admin closed this as move, except the IP above didn't really know what they're supported. Jenks24 (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Correlation confusion?

The following text is possibly not optimally worded, because it confused me terribly, and it took a while for me to work out what the issue was:

observations indicate a strong negative correlation between a star's heavy element content (metallicity) and its age (red shift): younger stars tend to have higher metallicity.

I think the problem is partially in the use of the term 'younger' (especially with the reference to 'red shift' thrown in): I kept getting confused between the age of the universe when the star formed, the current age of the star, etc, etc. I kept thinking the fragment above meant 'the earliest formed stars have the most metals' (which is of course not what it means).

I'm going to change it to use the term 'more recently formed' instead of "younger", to remove that potential confusion - hope that's OK with everyone. Noel (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction/Citations

Concerned that introduction just contains a fairly silly attack, i.e 'overrated' (already marked as needing citation) and 'little new in the theory' (well, it's a review paper, not a primary 'results' paper) and that the citation for 'Hoyle's undercited 1954 paper' gives an incorrect year (1954 vs 1956 [fixed now]) and the 1956 paper doesn't seem to contain anything s- or r- process nucleosynthesis, rather, it is focussed on mass loss in giant stars (See for yourself) Anonamouse77 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Anonamouse77[reply]

It looks like a fanboy of Fred Hoyle editing from an IP extensively rewrote this article in late June. Reverting it to the state from 5 June 2012, or at least removing all the unsourced praise, would be sensible. --Tweenk (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on B2FH paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]