Talk:High Explosive Research/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 05:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bags this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	OSRD is mentioned without explanation or link the second mention of Rudolf Peierls should just be Peierls per WP:SURNAME, same for Otto Frisch probably necessary to explicitly state that May was British "to examine the feasibility" of what? suggest ~~for~~ which the Ministry of Supply suggest which functioned as both once introduced, Sir John Anderson should just be Anderson, same with William Penney and Klaus Fuchs construction ofand operation? Some of the paragraph that starts During the war, Chadwick... should be written in past tense, as it is a flashback to the war and times prior to the point that has been reached in the article Otto Frisch and gaseous diffusion are overlinked would be answerable only link metallurgy with everything ~~going up~~ to March 1946 going to compatible with outr status and Canadaian programmes Wigner's disease or Wigner effect? suggest that it be consistent.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	suggest combining the four para lead into two paras
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. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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 media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Op hurricane.jpg needs some summary tweaking, it seems to be claiming fair use, but seems likely to be PD, needs source in source field, author unknown File:John Anderson, 1st Viscount Waverley 1947.jpg the link shows the author as Yousuf Karsh but no copyright information, the licensing needs work File:John Douglas Cockcroft 1961.jpg the link shows the copyright as held by the Nationaal Archief, I can't find any evidence of a partnership agreement in the image summary/licensing
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing, great article! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a new version of the cauliflower photo, from the AWM.
The Netherlands archives say that all the image are either in the PD, or licensed under CC 4.0. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]