Talk:Harrie Massey

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harrie Massey article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Harrie Massey 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
Date	Process	Result
March 8, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 27, 2023.

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Harrie Massey is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Belfast Low‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.BelfastWikipedia:WikiProject BelfastTemplate:WikiProject BelfastBelfast-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Military / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / South Pacific / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	World War II task force

Physics: Biographies Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Northern Ireland

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The review will be done shortly, AFAP by me. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Criteria edit

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review edit

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion edit

The lead requires a slight rewrite to remove the 'influential' and the next sentence could be connected with the first as a single phrase. A little more expansion in the very first paragraph will do good.
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The info box must have at least two inline or full cites, specially rectifying the death and birth date.
The Infobox summaries the article and must not have inline cites. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Don't think so. Galileo Galilei do not have so, neither many other GAs of similar fields. Inline cites provide better stability and at least two of them are expected in the infobox. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 07:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

WP:INFOBOXREF: References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material requires a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information doesn't also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio shows about 70% paraphrasing which must be reduced by a rewrite.
Despite the figure, the compare shows no sign of paraphrasing at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

royalcommission1851.org is dead and must be removed or replaced.
Replaced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Collisions of Material Particles from cam.ac.uk must be updated of access date.
Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Though images are not a criterion, an image or two in the early life and career and later life sections will be appreciated.
Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Death could be better explained in a new section.
Moved to a new section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Second paragraph of Second World War needs few more inline cites.
Section is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Result edit

The article passed the GA review to gain a Good Article status. Though I have a slight concern on the lack of cites in the info box, it does not pose a great threat for the article's gradation as GA. Some red links point towards future articles and an image of the person is appreciated in the article. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 11:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Additional notes edit

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Assessment comment edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Harrie Massey/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references and a more continuous flow Snailwalker | talk 00:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 00:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 17:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The article was completely rewritten in March 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified (January 2018) edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harrie Massey. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716041723/http://www.aip.org.au/info/?q=content%2Fharrie-massey-medal-and-prize to http://www.aip.org.au/info/?q=content%2Fharrie-massey-medal-and-prize

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]