Jump to content

Talk:Willard Libby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWillard Libby has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 22, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 26, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Willard Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960 for his role in the development of radiocarbon dating?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 17, 2019, and December 17, 2023.

Place of Death

[edit]

All other encyclopaedias seem to point to Loas Angeles as the place where he died. Can someone check this? I don't not want to alter Cambridge without a written (printed) high class source. --DrJunge (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spontaneous fission

[edit]

According to [1], Libby tried to find spontaneous fission in 1939 and found the upper limit of its partial desintegration constant to be 10-22 s-1. --217.21.43.22 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Willard Libby/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 17:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


First reading

[edit]

The first half of the article has a number of careless errors while the second half is much better:

That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

[edit]
  • The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
  • The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
  • The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
  • The article is neutral.
  • The article is stable.
  • The single images is relevant and has a fair use rationale.