Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Chadwick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted MilHistBot (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Chadwick

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Nobeljeff (talk)

Another mad scientist associated with Tube Alloys and the Manhattan Project. Harkens back to the days when Britain was one of the world leaders in physics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Is this going to FAC? Copyediting needs to be just a bit fussier for FAC these days. I'll leave it alone if A-class is the last stop for this one. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will be going to FAC, so you can look at it there if you prefer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do it here, Hawkeye, as long as you don't mind me fiddling with it. John, Ian and others have been making a lot of edits after my edits lately ... and I'm getting the message loud and clear, I need to be a little fussier. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for "known as the father of nuclear physics"?

"Uncomfortable with the trend toward Big Science,", " is seen as a leader in the transition to "Big Science".": ? - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Dropped the former. It's not wrong but I can see how reders might feel confused. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"either of these things ... The reason for this would remain unexplained for many years.": I don't follow, and I don't know which two things are meant. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- that beta radiation produced a continuous electromagnetic spectrum, and not discrete lines How can that be if the energy of photons is quantised? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A recent book": by?
- Added author's name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"is said to deserve credit": probably better to attribute this.
- There is a footnote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"one Liverpool observer wrote": I'd attribute it.
- Attributed to Sir James Mountford, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Liverpool. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"that "he had never seen a man 'so physically,": I'm not getting the nested quotes; who's saying what?
- Sir James. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dan! Much appreciated! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks good, I have a couple of minor points: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

at five paragraphs, the lead looks like it might too long per WP:LEAD, which recommends four
- Reduced to three. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
watch the date formats as there appears to be some inconsistency: e.g. "March 22, 2013" v. "20 October 1891"
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, "As later described by Churchill..." --> probably best to use Churchill's full name and link on first mention
- Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, I'd recommend adding an inline citation for the quote: "the possession of these powers by the Germans ... might have altered the result of the war, and profound anxiety was felt by those who were informed."
- Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
inconsistent terminology: "World War II" and "Second World War", as well as "World War I"
- Made consistent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, the interview might be better presented using one of the cite templates;
- Moved to the External links section
in the References, is there an isbn for the Bundy or Szasz works, and an oclc for the Gowing work?
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, Brown and Bundy should come before "Chadwick" if sorting alphabetically
- Moved to the Exrternal links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, is there a place of publishing for the Laurence work?
- New York. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the duplicate link check tool reports several examples of possible overlink, for example: Atomic bomb; MAUD Committee; Manhattan Project; Gonville and Caius College; uranium; Royal Society; Neils Bohr; John Cockcroft.
- Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I'm happy it meets the A-class criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
- External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
- Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
- Images all seem to be PD / free and have the req'd information (no action req'd)
- Captions look fine (no action req'd)
- No duplicate links (no action req'd)
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
- The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd)
- The first and last paras of the lead are a little repetitive. For instance the same phrase appears: "he wrote the final draft of the MAUD Report, which inspired the United States government to begin serious atomic bomb research efforts..."
  - Removed the second occurrence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Typo here: "...was created to investigated the matter further..."
  - Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- These minor points aside this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments

Enjoyed reading it!
- Thanks! It's always great to hear that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd have broken the second para of the lead into two at "After the war, Chadwick followed Rutherford..."
- Done. It originally was, but there were five paragraphs, and I had to reduce it.
New Years Honours could be linked.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The two were married in August 1925.[15] Kapitza was Best Man." I'd recommend combining these fairly short sentences.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
alpha, beta and gamma radiation - worth linking.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and Edward Condon realised that anomalies in then-current theory like the spin of nitrogen would be resolved" - I'd have gone for "and Edward Condon realised that anomalies in then-current theory, like the spin of nitrogen, would be resolved".
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" that it still ran on direct current," - I'd recommend "direct current electricity", which would scan more easily for the casual reader
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Dawn Over Zero: the Story of the Atomic Bomb" - the MOS would have this as "Dawn Over Zero: The Story of the Atomic Bomb"
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.