Talk:John Clive Ward/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lead;
  • Some basic context on "Andrei Sakharov"; a Russian scientist etc.

    The reader can click on the link if they want to know more.

• Section 1;
  • Basic context on "Maurice Pryce"

    The reader can click on the link if they want to know more.

• Section 2;
  • context on "Chien-Shiung Wu" "I. Shaknov"

    The reader can click on the link if they want to know more.

  • who refused to accept it; why was the thesis rejected and what was the summary of the argument that lead to the acceptance of the thesis

    The source says: "For some no doubt trivial reason, Kemmer was unable to make the trip to Oxford, and his place was taken by R. E. Peierls, who declared the thesis unworthy of acceptance. Outside the examination chamber, he privately suggested that the standard consolation prize of a B.Sc. topped up with an entry into his own empire in Birmingham... Fortunately, the internal examiner J. de Witt put on a good show of determination that the degree be awarded. R. E. Peierls retired hurt from the contest."

• Section 3;
  • 1950–51 to 1950–1951, per MOS:DATERANGE, also there are similar instances in the article, fix them

    Y done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 4;
  • project - resumed cooperation, this better be an un-spaced em dash

    Y done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 4–5; why did Ward leave his job at Aldermaston? He career was going good and he was also titled "father of the British hydrogen bomb", but what was the reason to leave all of that and join an electric company, that too not a reputed one?

  He didn't get along with Penney. This is already mentioned, but added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 5;
  • informing him that Albert Einstein would be spinning in his grave? I can't catch the point, better make it clear

    Added a link for readers who don't get the physics joke. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • and statistical mechanics and the Ising model; "and" is repetitive

    Y done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 6;
  • One dab link, Pittsburg

    Y done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 7;
  • Anything on children and where his body was buried?

    He had no children. No information about what happened to his remains. Probably cremated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• One dead link identified
• Dup links
  • Abdus Salam; para 3, section 5
  • Bachelor of Arts; para 3, section 6
  • quantum electrodynamics; para 2, section 7

  Y unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• 48.7% confidence, violation possible. It is from a blog, what is your stand?

  Y It's always hard to tell who's copied who in a case like this, so I have assumed a copyvio, and rewritten the offending section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The next one is from a PDF, take care of this

    Y Innocuous. Consists entirely of proper nouns and a couple of short quotes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)