Jump to content

Talk:Chernobyl disaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sredmash (talk | contribs) at 23:29, 29 December 2023 (Alexey v. Alexy v. Alexei: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured article candidateChernobyl disaster is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 3, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 14, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 26, 2004, April 26, 2005, April 26, 2006, April 26, 2007, April 26, 2009, April 26, 2012, April 26, 2013, and April 26, 2016.
Current status: Former featured article candidate



Grammar

The fist sentence should read: "At the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the city of Pripyat, located in the then Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR)" instead of: "at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the city of Pripyat, then located in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR)". It did not physically move.

The section titled "Social Economic Effects" should be renamed to "socioeconomic effects" to reflect proper terminology.

minor but this is the English language page "Numerous structural and construction quality issues, as well as deviations from the original plant design, had been known to KGB since at least 1973 and passed on to the Central Committee, which take no action and classified the information." should be "been known to the KGB... which took no action"

Containing fire

The timeline says all fires were contained at 6:35 - this should probably mention "fires around the power plant": The core continued to burn days after, but there is no description what measures really lead to containing the fire inside the reactor. It just says "It is now known that virtually none of the neutron absorbers reached the core." It is not clear what really stopped the fire.

decay heat was the "fire" and it "stopped" being "red hot" like decay heat always does. With time.

Grammar edit request

There's a rather extended high-comma-count "sentence" with what looks to be a misspelling.

The expected highest body activity was in the first few years, were the unabated ingestion of local food, primarily milk consumption, resulted in the transfer of activity from soil to body, after the dissolution of the USSR, the now reduced scale initiative to monitor the human body activity in these regions of Ukraine, recorded a small and gradual half-decadal-long rise, in internal committed dose, before returning to the previous trend of observing ever lower body counts each year.

minimal-change improvement:

The expected highest body activity was in the first few years, where the unabated ingestion of local food (primarily milk) resulted in the transfer of activity from soil to body. After the dissolution of the USSR, the now reduced scale initiative to monitor the human body activity in these regions of Ukraine recorded a small and gradual half-decadal-long rise in internal committed dose before returning to the previous trend of observing ever lower body counts each year.

length of lead

This has come up before, see..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chernobyl_disaster/Archive_13#Lead_too_long

Dougsim

Kyiv/ Kiev

I suggest to change old style transcription to English "Kiev" to Ukrainian/ more widely used one - "Kyiv". There are both versions now used in this article, yet main Wikipedia article about the city sticks to "Kyiv" transliteration. I think that using both versions in one article may be confusing and uniformity would be better stylistically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv#Name Szekel0 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. For the sake of consistency. References to locations in pages for historical events should stick to the common place name at the time. (See: constant discussion about Chornobyl) Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

change "Chernobyl" and "Chornobyl" 194.44.160.146 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: (I assume "to" was meant, not "and). Chernobyl is the English name for the location - because the article is written in English we use that name. The Ukrainian spelling is given in the note following the first usage of the term in the first sentence. Tollens (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving sections into their own articles

The "Human impact" section does not need to be nearly as long as it is considering Effects of the Chernobyl disaster already exists and has much of this information in it and is linked multiple times as further reading. Cutting that down would help this article a lot - there may be justification to move other big sections of this article into their own articles, particularly "Investigations and the evolutions of identified causes" (which could be combined with "Fizzled nuclear explosion hypothesis). Reconrabbit (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so long the destination article contains the same information and sources.Sredmash (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volume (Mass) of Uranium Used

Volume or Mass of Uranium ratio to Metal/Steel Container used, what were the Mass/Volume of Titanium/Platinum used per Mass/Volume of Uranium activated.?? 103.224.95.4 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey v. Alexy v. Alexei

The third paragraph under Core meltdown risk mitigation introduces Alexei Ananenko. However, the next paragraph refers to him as "Alexy" Ananenko. Then, citation 80 says its "Alexey." Should they be changed for consistency? ~tayanaru (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for AlexeiSredmash (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]