Talk:Hilde Levi

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	OK
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All OK
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	OK, though it does rely on rather few sources.
	2b. 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).	OK
	2c. it contains no original research.	No sign of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It does, but perhaps there should be a little more on how she found out about radiocarbon dating, and about autoradiography; and indeed what she did in induced radioactivity - I think an extra sentence on each would be helpful. This could mean additional sources. Added a bit about where she learned about these new techniques. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problem.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The photographer for Levi's portrait is unknown so the image is incorrectly tagged, should probably be Anonymous-EU which only requires 50 years so apparently valid here. Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Obviously it would be nice to have another image (Levi in Bohr's lab, etc) if any such exist.
	7. Overall assessment.	An interesting and crisply-written article.

Photographs

• We could take this one. It is from before WWII, so the copyright has expired. But it's not very good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We could, but no, it's not very good. Not to worry, it's not a showstopper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Thanks for working on this article. Still, the lead needs expansion to properly summarize the article per MOS:LEAD. Hekerui (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Super. Looks as if you'll have to write an article on Peter Pringsheim! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Good! Hekerui (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hilde Levi. 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/20040428094829/http://www.nba.nbi.dk/hilde.html to http://www.nba.nbi.dk/hilde.html

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) 23:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)