Talk:Standard model (basic details)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Level of this article

Would it be possible to make this article a bit less hermetic? Many notations are not defined. It is for sure a big work I am not qualified for but I think one should create articles and link them to this article in order to allow the reader to understand (at least in principle) what it is all about. For example : what are the Dirac and Weyl notations? What are the γ matrices? Could the editors think about making a bit more pedagogy? Thank you. 131.220.68.177 09:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Quite right, and thanks for making the comment. When I started this article that is what I had in mind. That + a way of pulling together the "important" aspects of the SM. It will happen, but it will take time to write the background articles. --Bambaiah 09:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a better title for this article might be "Standard model (technical overview)" or "Standard model (technical details)". "Basic details" implies it's been written with the average, non-technical Wikipedia reader in mind, whom I guarantee will be lost within the first 2 paragraphs. If anything, the companion Standard model article is better suited to the moniker "basic details". 59.167.43.134 15:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking "Standard Model (mathematical formulation)". But you know, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Should something that's so technical it's only accessible to advanced readers be moved to Wikibooks instead? This article could also be significantly expanded to actually make it possible for people who actually have had advanced college-level math understand what's being presented here. And after that's done, it really would be book length. -- Beland

Yes, think it is just the "basic details" in the title that is misleading. The actual article is at Standard Model, this is by all appearances supposed to be a quick summary of the facts for reference. Maybe a fitting title would be Standard Model Fact Sheet or something. Baad 08:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)