This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
I think the notability criteria for this isn't going to be reliable sources in the mainstream press. If you are so inclined see
WP:BK#Academic books and
reference 8 of this notability guideline. Hence, CRC press, the publisher, appears to be an academic (or scientific) publisher. This book appears to be listed in a sufficient number of University Libraries, according to WorldCat. It is listed in the Library of Congress
[1],
[2] per
Threshold standards.I doubt the mainstream press is going to provide any kind of focus for these books. This is a "series" based solely on scientific research, written in a review format. In addition, the related (or relevant) peer reviewed research papers, are listed at the end of each chapter. In other words, the content of the book based on primary research. So how do I reference the above as notable for the article? ----
Steve Quinn (
talk)
09:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)reply
These three references have different summations
[3],
[4],
[5]. I admit one has the same summation as the publisher, which I did not notice earler. However, the publisher summation is not one of these three. The third reference appears to be the same as CRC press (the publisher).
Furthermore, Google books also has a different summation. So counting google books is four references, so far. But I doubt there will be much more than this. Let's face it, this book is not aimed at a general audience. Even the publisher claims
[6] to be only aimed at "researchers, academics, professionals, and students". It is a publisher of scientific and technical work, collecting "collect essential reference material and the latest advances" aimed at its audience. ----
Steve Quinn (
talk)
09:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Metamaterials Handbook. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.