Talk:James Clerk Maxwell/Draft

Finished Maxwell

I finished this article for the time being. I invite native speakers to remove my linguistic idiosyncracies.--Paul Wormer 12:11, 7 August 2008 (CDT)

Some Suggestions per Approval

• First Paragraph: I'm not overly enthusiastic about phrases such as "He is regarded by most modern physicists" and he "is ranked." It reads like this article is trying to sell us a bill of goods that we wouldn't normally buy. This paragraph should assert Maxwell's greatness on his own merits (as it does in the first sentence and the last sentence of this section) and not assert his greatness by association. The guy invented the modern field of electro-magnatism which is the foundation of modern physics.
• Under "Student Days," the sentence "He was not unusually young to enter a Scottish university. At that time these were hybrids between modern secondary schools and universities" Seems more parenthetical to 18th century universities than to Maxwell. Would this be better as a footnote or on the University of Edinburgh page?
• London: "There were nine months of lecturing in the year, and evening lectures to artisans, and so on, were recognised as a part of the professor's regular duties." "There were nine months of lecturing in the year, as well as evening lectures to artisans which were also recognised as a part of the professor's regular duties." There are other wordy sentences in the Glenlair section, too.
• London: I do not see what the long quote from Lewis Campbell and William Garnett adds to this section.

• Szilard on Maxwell: "see Ref.[18]" this should be written out and linked: "See Maxwell's Demon 2.[18]"

This article also got me wondering: Was Maxwell responsible for advancing the ether model? Because the next big thing with light was the Michelson-Morley Experiment attempting to measure the ether drift of light. [btw, the experiment is on display in one of the admin buildings at Case from where I graduated. (okay, I'm proud...)]

Overall, this is a fine article. It deals with the biography of an important physicist and it discusses that physicist's important contributions in a manner that is understandable for other physicists. I must admit that I skipped over a lot of the discussion dealing with formulas (but that's typical reader's behavior). I wonder, though, if a common reader will get the theory being presented (I didn't; I skipped it). There is also the irony here where the article says "accessible to the modern reader" but goes on to present the formula.

I think we both. The article needs to speak to two different levels of readers. Russell D. Jones 19:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)