Talk:Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am reviewing this article and there are a number of issues that need addressing before I do a complete review.[reply]

  • The article has 18 dead links to references.[1]
  • There is a link that needs disambiguation.[2]
  • There are numerous maintenance tags calling for "Additional citations for verification", "citation needed", "clarification", "who said this", "vague", "original research".
  • There are external links in the body of the article.

Meanwhile, I will put the review on hold.

Please read Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and feel free to ask me questions. Xtzou (Talk) 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that items 2 and 4 are fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok, great! Xtzou (Talk) 17:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that item 1 is also completed except for the link noted below. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And item 3 is now completed. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • What is this: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Welcome?message=Please%20log%20in&url=%2FHOL%2FPage%3Fhandle%3Dhein.cfr%2Fcfr2002026%26div%3D10%26collection%3Dcfr%26set_as_cursor%3D0%26men_tab%3Dsrchresults%26terms%3D63.%26type%3Dmatchall (ref 14)
    • Yea, I saw that. I believe that the source is on a pay site, so unless you have an account you do not have access. So the reference may well be valid but not something that most readers can verify. I think that needs to be treated as effectively unsourced for a GA article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the article needs to be simplified and merely state what is known to be true. The lead is very hard to understand, but maybe it would be better to fix up the rest of the article and then write the lead. This article needs a clear story line. Xtzou (Talk) 19:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Truth here may be elusive since both sides have reams of material that show science behind their claims. I think the article needs to lay out those sourced claims for the readers. We need to be careful to not have the article make decisions on the 'facts' and I sense that could happen with the cleanup direction you are suggesting. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with you completely. Xtzou (Talk) 19:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the citations fixed except for one that I'm sure can be sourced but I have not found it. That is how much of the material proposed to be stored there is military. The article uses 10%, but I'm not sure that is correct. I have read this in print so I know it is out there. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Finally found a source for the military portion so everything now has citations. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My best advice is to start shrinking the lead. It seems a bit long and detailed, particularly in the recent history. All it needs to do is summarize the entire article and should only be about 3 paragraphs long or so and the larger (and sourced) details can be in the main body. Also watch out for very small or single-sentence paragraphs/sections. I noticed a single-sentence paragraph in the Background section and the Stability section is very small; it seems to be more of a "Location" section and doesn't need a subheading underneath it since that's all it is. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks I just did a bit of cleanup in the article and the lead. Since the issues associated with the repository involve locals, I don't see myself making some of the more significant changes that the lead needs. Being a local, I'm not sure that what I see as facts in the opening would be impartial wording. So I think it best if someone else can finish up that part. At this point, I think a lot of progress has been made and, other then the lead, we may be close to having the biggest part of the cleanup done. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since no one else is working on this, I took a crack at the lead cleanup. I think it is in much better shape now and I did not introduce any POV issues. I think the last major change needed in the lead is to remove the last sentence. I'm not sure where that goes, maybe into a new section on the funding with all of the information from through the article? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Xtzou was banned, I'll take a look at this article tonight and see if I find any other concerns. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, forgot about this. Read through the lead just now, only issue I found so far was "The NRC then had a statute time limit of 3 to 4 years to complete its safety analysis and public hearings." Three and four should be written out. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At long last, here's more of the review:

  • Ref #30 (chicago tribune) is listed as an expiring news link on a ref check. It's fine for now, just keep an eye on it, the url may have to be removed or an c used later on.
  • Ref #18 is a bare url.
  • "Based on these reports, President Reagan" I'd change to 'President Ronald Reagan'.
  • Is there a full name for USA-RS LLC?
  • "The consortium employs about 100 on the project in 2009 after budget cuts led to layoff of almost 800 employees on March 31, 2009. " Reword. Maybe "The consortium currently employs about 100 on the project; budget cuts led to the layoff of..."
  • "As of 2008, US$9 billion had been spent on the project[14] which has made Yucca Mountain one of the most studied pieces of geology in the world." Is there an updated number? Also, the money spent is what made it heavily studied? This is confusing.
  • Last paragraph on the TBM needs a citation.
I have addressed all of these except Ref #31 (old Ref #30) which for now is OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blockquote in the opposition section needs a cite.
  • "While 10,000 metric tons (9,800 LT; 11,000 ST) of the waste will be from America's military nuclear programs," This doesn't seem to fit with the second part of the sentence; they should probably be two separate sentences.
  • "and continues to serve as primary location" as the primary location.

Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Points addressed. The block quote was removed since I could not find a source. What I did find was pieces of it in various places so it is possible that there is a source that is not indexed. It can be restored if the original source is located. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March 2006, the staff of Republican majority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works" Reword a bit, I'm confused as to who exactly released it. The staff or the committee?
  • "By bringing in Oak Ridge for review of technical work, DOE will seek to present a high level of expertise and credibility as they move the project forward." Odd tense and wording; sentence could probably be removed.
  • "It also reflects international guidance regarding the level of confidence that can be placed in numerical projections over very long periods of time." cite?
  • You variously use one million and 1,000,000. Be consistent.

That's all, I'll pass this when these final issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is a confusing authorship in the document. I reworded it to reflect what is actually on the title page of the document. It is not clear from skimming the document who the authors are so it is best to leave it as is.
2 Minor text changes. This turns out to be a quote from a DOE document. So reformatted and cited.
3 This turns out to be a quote from a Senate subcommittee hearing document. So reformatted and cited.
4. Replaced the single '1 million' with '1,000,000'.
Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good with this article now, and as such I'm happy to pass this article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository/GA1&oldid=1051406261"