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
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an
A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a
lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be
of the standard of featured articles. The
Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an
infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
A thin pass. The article has a fair amount of inline citations, but many of the more basic claims are not attributed to a
reliable source. This is normal for a journal article (where the author is assumed to be a reliable source for those statements), but on wikipedia such statements also need some form of referencing, not only from a point of view of verifiability, bur also pointers to general literature for an interested reader. This can typically be achieved by giving a couple of general references to standard works or review articles.
Marginal fail. Although the article reasonably covers the technical aspects of the subject (As far as I can tell, it is not my area of expertise), it neglects the more mundane aspects such as the history (when was the object first studied, how provided the basic theory, etc.). For a subject like this this should not be to major, but it is interesting to a general reader.
Pass.
Pass.
Pass.
Fail. That article is written in field specific jargon. This reaches the point that is hard to understand for physicists with a graduate degree who are not into material science (like me), let alone a more general public.
Alhtough the article is fairly close to B-class it does not quite meet all the B-class criteria, and thus must rated as C-class.
TimothyRias (
talk) 13:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I would not agree -- collision cascade is used specifically to denote collisions among
atoms/ions inside a solid, while a particle shower is used for collisions of mostly
electrons and gamma particles in a gas. The physics behind the two phenomena
is very different, both because the interactions are and the collisional nature
(former is binary collisions, latter often many-body collisions).
91.153.142.82 (
talk) 18:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I also consider the two phenomena as almost fundamentally different. Collision cascades in most cases don't lead to the conversion of energy to matter, while it is the underlying principle of particle showers. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.193.107.99 (
talk) 11:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Collision cascade. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.