Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Norris Bradbury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Norris Bradbury[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Robert Oppenheimer's successor at the Manhattan Project's Los Alamos Laboratory Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Support - enjoyed reading it, with minor points below:

  • " the final assembly of the Gadget," - I'd have put "the Gadget" in speech marks (it's done that way in the article it's linked to, btw, and seems to be the style later in the article)
  • "They were married in 1933.[4] They had three sons, James, John, and David" - minor, but would it be worth flowing these two short sentences together?
  • "submitted his resignation at director of the Los Alamos Laboratory" - "as director". Should director be capitalised?
  • V. minor, but is gangrene actually a disease? "The disease spread to his left leg..." I think its actually a condition, which can be caused by certain diseases. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [2]:
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Images are all seem to be PD and are appropriate, captions ok.
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
    • "During the war he was..." I wonder if we need to specific which war? (suggestion only)
    • Something seems a little off with the wording here (I think), but I can't put my finger on it: "that spoiled the required perfect spherical shape desired from the implosion process..." Should "from" be "for" and is "required" contradictory with "desired"? Perhaps consider revising? (suggestion only)
      Re-worded to "that spoiled the perfect spherical shape desired for the implosion process"
    • I changed a few things which looked like typos to me. Pls revert if I got them wrong.
    • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
    All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments, leaning to Support:
    • Prose-wise, copyedited as usual but not a lot to do; as ever let me know if you disagree with anything.
    • Structure-wise, I felt the lead just a bit titchy, even though the article isn't particularly long.
      • Expanded the lead. I find these very hard to write. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Content-wise, the only snippet that left me wanting more was his dismissal following the campus disorder -- any thing further on that?
      • Really? I found the bit about NERVA fascinating enough to read a whole book on the subject. Anyhow, I've expanded the sentence to a paragraph. There are snippets about the incident elsewhere on Wikipedia. Alas, no one is likely to go looking here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't disagree about NERVA but unlike this incident, it has an article of its own... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • As far as referencing and supporting materials go, I haven't done a source review a la Nikki, but happy to go with AC's image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian, do you still have concerns outstanding or are you happy for this to be closed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Tks Harry, supporting after requested changes, though I'd still have preferred one of Nikki's patented source reviews. Looking over refs and citations myself, nothing much stood out except:
    • I notice some citations use just figures for page numbers rather than "p. nnn" or "pp. nnn–nnn" but that's probably down to the vagaries of the templates.
      • The difference here is between the standard way that books are cited and scientific papers, which is enforced by the cite journal template. "37 (10): 1311–1319" is volume 37 issue 10, pp. 1311–1319. I could insert the "p." and "pp." but it will probably be removed by a wiki gnome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think we need OCLC when there's an ISBN. Not deal-breakers, though -- the support stands. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Usually the OCLC is more useful. There was a review once before where another editor wanted OCLCs, so I insert them always now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - though I do have one question: did Bradbury play an active role of any sort in the 1970 incident at UNM or was his just another head that rolled in the aftermath? I'm assuming the latter, but it'd be good to make it explicit. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The whole incident is probably worth its own article rather than being tucked away in the UNM and Kent State articles, but I could find no mention of Bradbury playing any role, so it is assumed that his was just another head that rolled in the aftermath. But I cannot be explicit without an explicit source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping Hawkeye: Are you able to address Ian's and Parsec's last queries? I suppose I could close this now as they've both explicitly supported, but I'd prefer to see all the loose ends tied up first. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC) {{subst:arvhive bottom}}