Talk:Ernest Lawrence

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Good articleErnest Lawrence 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.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 22, 2013Good article nomineeListed
June 30, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 5, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the chemical element lawrencium is named after Ernest Lawrence, the inventor of the cyclotron (pictured, with his 60-inch cyclotron)?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 8, 2017, August 8, 2019, and August 8, 2022.
Current status: Good article

Wikipedia should be interesting

edit

Who was the jerk who deleted the medal theft paragraph? It is news, all over the papers in USA. Nobel medals are pure gold and also precious for their symbolic value. The fact that he donted his medal for post-mortem public display and the museum was morons to display such a rare and valuable object without true security is notable and revelant. Restoration is thus demanded! 82.131.210.162 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

edit

I'd like to propose changing the photo link from [1] to [2] as this latter link shows all of the Lawrence images at ESVA. In page History, see change made 1/25/2010.

Sprout333 (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure, looks good, makes sense. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

MIT work on RADAR

edit

How would we go about adding His pioneering work at MIT to help the British develop RADAR that ended with his giving them his best man Luis Alvarez, once the initialproblems had been solved, to miniaturize the components for use in aircraft? Scslate (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ernest Lawrence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to review this over the weekend. Jamesx12345 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've always thought that the Teller/Oppenheimer caused massive divisions - that's not quite the same, though.
This link is from the American Institute of Physics, so definitely satisfies RS.

Extremely readable article, coming from here in just a month. I'm surprised by the chattiness of the prose in some parts, but on reflection, I think it prevents it from being unreadably dry. Jamesx12345 21:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you're your own derivative, you must be ex. Just saying. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've always thought that "jams" must be 1, even without a satisfactory numerological explanation, and some brackets. I'll probably remove that tragic experiment in html anyway, and promote the article now. Good work again. Jamesx12345 11:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernest Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply