Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 05:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll be reviewing this article. It looks quite big and complex, so it wouldn't be quick; please expect my comments and questions in the next few days. Artem.G (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Some comments/questions:

• and it is a recognized CERN experiment (RE13). - can any CERN experiment be unrecognized? Is it important? Is there any distinction?

There are experiments which are conducted at CERN, e.g. ATLAS, CMS which are done using the biggest of CERN accelerators - LHC (I think these are 'CERN experiments'). There are experiments NOT conducted at CERN, but CERN is somehow involved in them, e.g. currently CERN contributes to the production and testing of new subdetectors which will be used to upgrade the ND280 detector ('recognized CERN experiment' name is probably for them). There are also experiments that have nothing in common with CERN: they are not conducted in CERN neither CERN is not supporting them in any way, e.g. that was the case of the T2K experiment at the beginning, before CERN involved in the ND280 upgrade.

So far, I haven't put such an explanation in the article, but I can put it as a footnote with one or two sentences if needed. I was describing institutions involved in T2K, thus I mentioned involvement from CERN also.

• ref 6 T2K Collaboration (2015). "Measurements of neutrino oscillation in appearance and disappearance channels by the T2K experiment with 6.6×10$^{20}$ protons on target" - it's better to use ... with 6.6E20 protons on target as on arxiv, without $^{}$ (same in refs 5, 6, 24)

Done.

• atmospheric neurtinos can be linked to Neutrino#Atmospheric

Done.

• please move both images of ND280 ('ND280 under construction.' and 'Exploded view of the ND280 detector.') to { {multiple images} } and to the corresponding section

Done.

• ref 39 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52297058 - please use proper 'cite web'

Done.

• Please add some timeframe into lead section. It's a bit hard to understand whether this experiment is a past one or ongoing.

Done.

• An additional 4 veto layers of the scintillator - what is 'veto layer'?

I've added an explanation in a footnote.

• Please add section for results. I see there is some mention of the results in 'History' section and in 'Physics program', but I think that results are really important and deserve more detailed survey. Can you describe why the results are important? were these results reproduced by any other experiment?

I've moved information about the results from 'History' to 'Physics program'. I haven't created a separate section about physics results, but everything in the 'Physics program', because results from one phase influence the goals for the second phase. Thus it would be hard to split physics goals and physics results into two separate sections as the flow is like that:

Physics goal of the first phase (Physics program) → results of the first phase (Results) → goal of the second phase (Physics program).

• The T2K experiment is expected to operate in the current form until the end of 2020. In 2021 a major upgrade of the neutrino beamline and the ND280 near detector will be performed. - it should be updated, it's mid 2021 now. Was it upgraded?

The beam upgrade is conducted on schedule, but the ND280 upgrade is delayed. I've added/modified dates in sections: 'Future plans', 'T2K-II', 'Beam upgrade' and 'ND280 upgrade'.

It's just a few points that I found skimming the article. I will re-read it several times and post new comments here. Artem.G (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to put it onhold, sorry for that. Unhold for 7 days now. Artem.G (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the author is currently absent from wikipedia. I do think that the article is quite good; it needs a little bit of polishing, a section on major results (that are now scattered across several sections), and a section about why these results are important. Once that done, and once the minor issues would be fixed, the article can be nominated again, and I think it will pass. Artem.G (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'Physics program', I've added an explanation why delta_CP measurement is important and a comparison with the delta_CP measurement done by the NOvA experiment. The explanation why I haven't create a separate section 'Results' is above.

Apart from the above changes, I've added the section 'SK-Gd', which is also a part of the T2K phase II preparation, but I forgot about it earlier. I've added also two pictures: beam production scheme and scintillator operation principle.

I'm sorry for the late reply (vacation and then less time to do stuff for Wikipedia).

Thank you very much for reviewing the article and for your comments! They were very useful. Please let me know, if I should improve anything else.Batmann (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]