Talk:Hilde Levi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:12, 22 March 2013 (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.	OK
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All OK
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.	OK, though it does rely on rather few sources.
	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).	OK
	2c. it contains no original research.	No sign of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It does, but perhaps there should be a little more on how she found out about radiocarbon dating, and about autoradiography; and indeed what she did in induced radioactivity - I think an extra sentence on each would be helpful. This could mean additional sources. Added a bit about where she learned about these new techniques. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problem.
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.	The photographer for Levi's portrait is unknown so the image is incorrectly tagged, should probably be Anonymous-EU which only requires 50 years so apparently valid here. Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Obviously it would be nice to have another image (Levi in Bohr's lab, etc) if any such exist.
	7. Overall assessment.	An interesting and crisply-written article.

Photographs

We could take this one. It is from before WWII, so the copyright has expired. But it's not very good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but no, it's not very good. Not to worry, it's not a showstopper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]