Template:Did you know nominations/Courant Snyder parameters

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as

the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know

), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Courant–Snyder parameters

• ... that although the Courant–Snyder parameters in accelerator physics are often referred to as Twiss parameters, Richard Q. Twiss had no involvement in creating them? Source: "Some years ago Frank Cole contacted Richard Twiss, who didn’t understand why the parameters were named for him." [1]
  • Comment: This is my first DYK nomination, sorry if I've made any procedural errors.

Moved to mainspace by PianoDan (talk). Self-nominated at 18:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

• • ALT1 ... that although the Courant–Snyder parameters in accelerator physics are often referred to as "Twiss parameters", Richard Q. Twiss had no idea how his name came to be associated with them? Source: "Some years ago Frank Cole contacted Richard Twiss, who didn’t understand why the parameters were named for him." [2]

• Comment from nominator: The original article has been moved to Courant–Snyder parameters Is there anything that needs to be done to update this nomination? Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, you're good. Just added the endash to the hook. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@SeoR: Thanks for the feedback! I've added another reference to the lead and the "equations of motion section," and I tried to pick one that's actually available online, and has nice pictures, for the first cite. I like your version of the hook much better, but I don't know the actual process for accepting it - what do I edit where? Thanks again! PianoDan (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeoR: I did make one small change - Twiss is deceased, so I changed "has" to "had" in the alternate hook. I see you already added a strikethrough to the original hook. Is the process now complete from my end? Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Overall: A nice compact article, established 20/1 in mainspace and submitted 27/1 so fine on timing. Volume sufficient (and that's omitting the equations, which DYKCheck can't count), no sign of prev. DYK or ITN. A little work needed on citation - we're strict about "min. 1 cite per paragraph" and here the opening and "Equation of motion" bit are uncited - I imagine this is no problem to fix. Earwig is 0% and otherwise most material will be seen in texts but I think we're clear on copyvio. Continuing... I think we're almost there. One thing - the cite doesn't quite say "no involvement in creation" though this can be implied, and found with good old Google, etc. - but still, the material as now used does not quite match. Can you either find a cite which addresses this more directly, or consider an alternative wording, such as the example above? Many thanks, and looking forward to being able to approve very soon. / Thanks! Both issues are now resolved, if the alt wording is used. I appreciate your kind words about the alternative - to adopt it, and proceed, we put use the pair around it, to strike it through. On this basis, I can approve; feel free to add any other alternative wording. / And yes, thanks, that's a good catch on the tense - and it's good to go. A DYK administrator will be along in the near term to consider promotion to the queues for posting. Thanks, and welcome back again soon! SeoR (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)