Talk:Emilio Segrè/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Corvus coronoides (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Review in progress. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Article on hold

Things are looking good. I'm going to place this article on hold for 1 week (until August 9, 2013), pending resolution of the following points:

• in the early life section, "With the help of the director of the Institute of physics..." - could you please clarify whether this is an Institute of Physics or an institute of physics?
  • Y "Institute of Physics" Fixed capitalisaton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• in the Radiation Laboratory section, "...as he now feared that was in Europe was inevitable" - I think "war in Europe" is meant, but am not certain. Please check and fix.
  • Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• in the Radiation Laboratory section, "Segrè went looking for element 93 but did not find it, as he was looking for an element chemically akin to rhenium rather than a rare earth element, which is what he discovered" - what did he discover? Rhenium? a rare earth element?
  • Y Re-worded to "but did not find it, as he was looking for an element chemically akin to rhenium instead of a rare earth element, which is what element 93 turned out to be." It is probably hard for the reader to imagine this, as the gazing at a modern periodic table in chemistry class in high school would have made it seem obvious that Neptunium is a rare earth, but Segrè did not have a late 20th century chart. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Later Life section, "...and told Segrè to let him know when Pontecorvo wrote from Russia..." - I think what is implied here is that Alvarez's comment led Segre to move to UIUC, but it should be rephrased to be more encyclopedic.
  • Y I have expanded on this. I think Segrè was afraid of being blackballed as a communist sympathiser. But he does explicit say this,

Let me know if there are any questions/comments/concerns. Best, Corvus coronoides _talk 14:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC) -- All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Pass

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Excellent work; informative article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Very readable prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Cites more than adequate.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good, general coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issues here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images in public domain for one reason or another.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Best, Corvus coronoides _talk 21:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)