GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Prose analysis (for criteria 1 and 4) pending, probably tomorrow.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
05:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this review. It is much appreciated.
Again, thanks for taking this on. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to pass this as a Good Article. I still believe that the Wellerstein source is not optimal, and I've offered an equivalent replacement source above, if you're interested, but I'm not going to hold this back from promotion over a disagreement about whether the WP:SPS expert exception applies in this case.
If you are interested in developing this further, there's a lot more material out there that you can draw upon. A quick perusal of the other sources suggests that your survey of the literature is "broad", as the GA level demands, but far from FA's "comprehensive" criterion (although I do think this article could easily become FA-level). Getting a hold of the Journal of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article would be quite valuable, I think. And there are quite a few print sources that discuss the film, sometimes at length. One, I linked above as an alternative to Wellerstein's blog. Other books that appear to have particularly germane content include:
As an unrelated suggestion for improvement, you might considered end-noting inflation-based equivalents for financial figures (the {{ Inflation}} template is an awesome tool that I only recently became aware of. But none of this stuff is required for the GA standard, and I feel the work done on the article since I started the review satisfies that standard. So I'm happy to award it the little green icon. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Prose analysis (for criteria 1 and 4) pending, probably tomorrow.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
05:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this review. It is much appreciated.
Again, thanks for taking this on. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to pass this as a Good Article. I still believe that the Wellerstein source is not optimal, and I've offered an equivalent replacement source above, if you're interested, but I'm not going to hold this back from promotion over a disagreement about whether the WP:SPS expert exception applies in this case.
If you are interested in developing this further, there's a lot more material out there that you can draw upon. A quick perusal of the other sources suggests that your survey of the literature is "broad", as the GA level demands, but far from FA's "comprehensive" criterion (although I do think this article could easily become FA-level). Getting a hold of the Journal of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article would be quite valuable, I think. And there are quite a few print sources that discuss the film, sometimes at length. One, I linked above as an alternative to Wellerstein's blog. Other books that appear to have particularly germane content include:
As an unrelated suggestion for improvement, you might considered end-noting inflation-based equivalents for financial figures (the {{ Inflation}} template is an awesome tool that I only recently became aware of. But none of this stuff is required for the GA standard, and I feel the work done on the article since I started the review satisfies that standard. So I'm happy to award it the little green icon. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)