GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks again for all the good work you're doing on the nuclear physics topics. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This looks like a good start, and is clearly comprehensive. My main concern is with the quality of the some of the sourcing. It's probably inevitable that Seaborg's autobiography has to be a main source here, but I wonder if some obituaries or similar sources could be found to transfer part of this load from primary to secondary sources. Some assessments of Seaborg's work in particular seem to need sourcing. More specific concerns below. Thanks again for your work on this one -- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses; that covers a lot of my concerns. Some of the above, though, appears to me to still need work.
Thanks again for all your work on this one. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Great, I think that covers all my concerns. Let me do a few last checks for things like image tags and we should be set here. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I made one change to the lead to reflect a change you made to the body; feel free to further change if you have a preferred phrasing. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks again for all the good work you're doing on the nuclear physics topics. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This looks like a good start, and is clearly comprehensive. My main concern is with the quality of the some of the sourcing. It's probably inevitable that Seaborg's autobiography has to be a main source here, but I wonder if some obituaries or similar sources could be found to transfer part of this load from primary to secondary sources. Some assessments of Seaborg's work in particular seem to need sourcing. More specific concerns below. Thanks again for your work on this one -- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
-- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses; that covers a lot of my concerns. Some of the above, though, appears to me to still need work.
Thanks again for all your work on this one. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Great, I think that covers all my concerns. Let me do a few last checks for things like image tags and we should be set here. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I made one change to the lead to reflect a change you made to the body; feel free to further change if you have a preferred phrasing. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |