|
[[File:Thomson atom seven electrons.svg|right|thumb]]
== Overview is too long and detailed. ==
The Overview is too dense. I'm not even sure why it exists. Seems like what we need is "Background". The intro should be the overview. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 03:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:Ok I moved content out of Overview, and deleted some of it. In its place I added a Background section with four ingredients essential for the Thomson story: atomic model, electrons, radiation, and spectral lines. Thomson uses electrons to build a model of the atom, radiation to probe matter in support of his model, but ultimately fails to describe spectral lines. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
== Need a section on the experimental evidence. ==
Thomson and his colleague Crowther published work on the scattering of beta particles by metal foils that they used to support Thomson's model. This work should be discussed. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 03:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
== Development ==
Unfortunately at least some of content of the Development section is wrong, and now I suspect it all. It appears to be a synopsis of self-selected contributions of Thomson by date, created by reading the original papers. It's a good example of why [[WP:PSTS| Wikipedia prefers secondary sources]].
For example the 1905 lecture was an overview of previous work, esp. a 1903 paper where the magnetic analogy was introduced based on previous work by [[Alfred Marshall Mayer]]. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 21:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:In my experience working on many history projects on Wikipedia, secondary sources are often unreliable. They often present a distorted summarization of what came before. That's why I use both. [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 22:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::Well I agree that many pages use web sites as if they were secondary sources or sensationalized pop-science articles that aren't historical analysis. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 00:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:Also secondary sources might contradict each other and we end up having to pick and choose and interpret anyway . [[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] ([[User talk:Kurzon|talk]]) 22:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
== Lead sentence is inappropriate. ==
| 