Wikipedia:Featured article review/Plutonium/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Maralia via FACBot (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Plutonium

Nominator and main editor User:Mav semi-retired; notified 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automatically included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not hold the standard that is expected, and has not done so for a significant time. It even has issue tags that have been present, but without improvement. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF, see the instructions at WP:FAR. Was the article talk page notified in advance? If so, then you should post a link to the talk notification done earlier, and do the notifications of significant contributors and WikiProjects (see top of the FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there does not appear to have been any talk-page discussion, I am placing this review on hold. If after a week or two insufficient progress has been made the review should be reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - at FAR now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the article. I have added some references so it is fully referenced again. I will check the references for dead links etc. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link rot repaired. All links are in working order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many improvements by Hawkeye7, and I especially find the restoration of a 4 paragraph lede as important. I'm supportive of keeping FA status with a little more work. I'll give it an in depth look this weekend. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can External links be pruned, and sister links combined into one link (I forget how to do that)? And, there is an inconsistent citation style; some citations link to references, some don't. Some are short citations, others aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have consolidated all the books in the References section, and all have short references. The web pages and journals remain inline, which is the usual style. I;m not sure what you mean by sister links. Do you have any examples? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure Sandy is referring to links to commons, quotes etc. as in sister-projects?-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been so busy ... see bottom of autism for one link to sister projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC: Thanks for the work done. I found this article easy to understand, which surprised and pleased me. I often find chemical articles out of my league. Two minor comments: (1) Both "tonne" and "ton" are used, but I wasn't sure whether this was a deliberate inconsistency to use "tonne" whenever referring to metric tons and "ton" when referring to short tons? Anyway, I left it alone but it struck me as a bit odd. (2) Both "weapons grade" and "weapons-grade" are used. I wasn't certain whether there should be a hyphen or not, so I left that alone as well. DrKiernan (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The ton-tonne issue needs to be sorted; it is non-trivial. The hyphen issue should be easily solved (I would use the hyphen). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it is trivial. The first thing you need to know is that fissile material quantities have always been measured in metric. Even in the US and UK, and even during World War II, and never in troy grains or ounces. When we went metric in Australia back in 1970s, the spelling "tonne" was advocated in order to avoid confusion with the old (long) ton, and our style guides still reflect this, but the Americans decided to use "metric ton". The article uses "tonne" consistently. That leaves only the kiloton of TNT, which is not a unit of mass at all. It is a unit of energy that is defined as 4.184 gigajoules precisely. In other words, one gramme of TNT is conveniently defined as one kilocalorie. There is a link to this in the article. As for the "weapons grade" versus "weapons-grade", I have taken the Wikipedia articles as the yardstick, and standardised on "weapons-grade". So the article is now consistent in this regard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hawkeye7, thanks for fixing "ton" to "tonne" and the hyphens. Is there now somewhere in the article a wikilink for the correct definition of ton/tonne used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both are linked at first use now. DrKiernan (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank y'all for cleaning up the article - especially Hawkeye7. The article looks great once again. --mav (reviews needed) 02:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.