Talk:Supernova neutrinos

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2021, between 17 January 2021 and 8 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Astroriya. 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2021 and 8 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Astroriya.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Astroriya (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Astroriya: that's a great list. You can also do a site-targeted google search, which yields more candidates, such as NOvA, Solar neutrino, Solar neutrino problem, Type II supernova, and you may find more if you page through the search results. Most of these will need piped links. Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Great, all checked, plenty of in-links now. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

A request was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy for suggestions of secondary sources for this article: this book might contain some useful content? Best, Wham2001 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Potentially also this review, though it's now quite old. Wham2001 (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Two more reviews: this one by Janka has a lot of details about the processes by which neutrinos are produced in and contribute to supernovae; this very recent review by Burrows & Vartanyan is less focussed on neutrinos but potentially also useful. Both reviews spend quite a lot of time on the authors' own work but that's probably inevitable in this field. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just starting to look at the article and there are some issues to be addressed with the sourcing. The overall issue is tagged at the top of the page: reliance on primary sources. This is somewhat inevitable for scientific articles, but some things need confirmation in secondary sources to confirm either their notability or their acceptance as a scientific consensus. There are three references currently in the article to non-published preprints; these should probably all be removed and replaced with something peer-reviewed or a secondary source, or dropped entirely. There are several inline external links, to a variety of arXiv papers or experiment web pages. These should be converted to references (inline per the style in the rest of the article) or dropped if it is not necessary to verify the statement being made. Some external links could be moved to an external link section if they are closely relevant to the article. Lithopsian (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you @Lithopsian: for your suggestions. I will be going through the article again and will try to fix the reference-issues. Astroriya (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Properties section contains this sentence: "Neutrinos are also the reason behind the evolution of the lepton-rich post-collapse star to the deleptonized neutron star." I can't make sense of it. The reason behind? Attic Salt (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Attic Salt: Neutrinos aid in the evolution. Evolution of a lepton-rich star to deleptonized state. Astroriya (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't help very much. Can you rewrite the sentence without the ambiguous "reason behind"? Attic Salt (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article says 1987a produced 10^58 neutrinos, but later says a core-collaps supernove produces around 10^52 neutrinos. 2001:16B8:CC13:FA00:246A:552D:A842:864C (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply