So far in my physics education I've developed a basic understanding of two nuclear models, the liquid-drop model and the shell model. I read something a while ago (don't have the text on hand to quote the exact phrasing, unfortunately) that seemed to imply, in a couple of places, at least some degree of mutual-incompatibility between the two models. This seemed odd to me because as well as both models making accurate predictions, I'm not aware of any important features of either model that strike me as being explicitly contradictory. Stanger still is the idea that although both models are decent approximations of reality, only one of them is actually "true" (this may just be me reading too much into what I read, but it's the impression I got). What seemed more reasonable to me is that the models are complimentary - that is, the liquid drop model is derived from nuclear geometry, and the shell model is based on a QM approach to the nucleus, but the two are both (at least approximately) "true," so to speak, with each model arriving at compatible predictions based on different data, experiments and assumptions. But I could be completely wrong, of course. If anyone could shed some insight onto how nuclear models actually relate to each other, it would be much appreciated.