Talk:George Kistiakowsky/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll get started on this shortly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. All points addressed - Promoted


  • the article links to several dab pages [1]
  • alt text needed on some images (not a GA requirement) per [2]
  • all other toolbox checks are green. (no action required)
  • development of shaped charges
  • Hugh Stott Taylor , needs to lose the space before the comma
  • and gamegave him
  • He became an associate professor twice, might be worth clarifying the second time was at Harvard
  • tapped - suggest a little informal, perhaps "selected" or "recruited"
  • Spring → spring
  • was into RDX
  • "The challenge was to produce an industrial process that could produce it on a large scale", suggest substituting the first "produce" with "develop"
  • andwhich was widely used in torpedoes
    • YesY Ooops. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • calling outthat demanded forfurther investigation
  • suggest you explain a little more about the Chapman–Jouguet model, perhaps "the Chapman–Jouguet model of detonation velocity"?
  • The first para of the Manhatten Project subsection starts in 1944 then goes back to 1943. Suggest you put it in chronological order to show how he became involved
  • "Kistiakowsky watched the as the" not sure if a word is missing or extra
  • He sent Kistiakowsky, in early November 1960, to the SAC Headquarters in Omaha to evaluate the SAC war plans → In early November 1960, he sent Kistiakowsky to the SAC Headquarters in Omaha to evaluate the SAC war plans
  • The orders gave SAC officers the choice to cooperate with Kistiakowsky, do you mean they had no choice? Unclear.
  • fn's 13 & 23, pp→p
  • his name is unnecessarily bolded in the Refs (Dainton)
  • physics should probably have an initial capital in the infobox
  • The file File:George Kistiakowsky ID badge.png just needs its PD licence tweaked over at Commons to fix a syntax error
  • there are three overlinks, Physical chemistry, Manhattan Project and American Chemical Society

That's it, placing on hold for seven days for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)