Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. Robert Oppenheimer/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:36, 19 March 2011 [1].

J. Robert Oppenheimer edit

J. Robert Oppenheimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Robert Oppenheimer, theoretical physicist best known for the Born–Oppenheimer approximation, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process, and the prediction of quantum tunneling, neutron stars and black holes. Worked on the Manhattan Project that developed the first nuclear weapons. Former featured article (2005-2007) now restored to its former glory with more text and lots more references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFA, has been on mainpage SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can never again be on the front page. It won't be restored to that much glory! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I need this reminder on FFAs so that if they are promoted, the mainpage bolding is done at WP:FA, and the correct accounting is done at WP:FFA ... if reviewers note an FFA at FAC, they could add this red note to help out the delegates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean articles like Speed of Light should be removed from the page once they are promoted again? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see DaBomb87 just fixed that one at WP:FFA; doing my homework now to see how it was missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Yep, that was missed, now fixed: [2] [3] Have to remind reviewers and others to watch for these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boulton edit

Sources comments

  • Refs 16, 35, 82 should, for consistency, be formatted "Smith & Weiner 1980"
  • Ref 38 (JSTOR link) needs (subscription required)
  • Ref 61: Capitalization error (May)
  • Ref 69: a stray "&"
  • Ref 73: Dead link
  • Ref 119: I'm not sure about the caps. The purpose of the citation is to identify, rather than replicate, the source.
  • Refs 121 and 123: "AEC hearing transcript" requires further definition (date, who published it etc)
  • Ref 128: Likewise, a date, and the source of the testimony, should be given
  • Ref 145: I see no confirmation in the source for the statement that "The northern portion of the beach is colloquially known to this day as "Oppenheimer Beach"." There is also the question of what makes this anonymously written source reliable.
  • Ref 148: Formalize ("intro" → "Inroduction")
  • Refs 153 and 154: these NYT articles require fee or subscription
  • Refs 157 and 159 lack publisher
  • No citations to Hager (1995), McMillan (2005). These should be listed as Further reading

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Only limited spotchecking carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Since the article was demoted after a FAR I would like to state what has been done to redress the issues raised. The main issues was the references or lack thereof. These have been tidied up. Templates have been used for all references. Page numbers have been added to all the book references. New references have been found and added. New sources have been located and existing ones verified. In the process, I rewrote some sections of the article. I felt that the there was too much about Oppenheimer's private life and political beliefs and not enough about his career as a physicist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As I also remark at the recent GAN. The article is very long. According to User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js the raw prose size of this article is 57kB or 9176 words, that is much longer as the ~30kB/6000 words recommended per WP:LENGTH. Of course, some times it is defendable that an article is longer than the suggested norm. However, in this cases, I think the article could be shorter without loss of relevant content. The text contains many spurious remarks, detailing facts that are of little or no relevance to the subject as a whole. For example, it doesn't seem that relevant that Oppenheimer took English and French lit. as an undergraduate, since this is hardly remarkable for an American undergrad. Similarly, it doesn't seem to be very relevant that Herbert W. Smith was a former English teacher. (In fact, I doubt that the reader needs to know about his existence at all, i.e. the relevant sentence could simply read: "To recover he (i.e. Oppenheimer) to New Mexico, where he fell in love with horseback riding and the Southwest United States.") TR 11:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In other countries, science majors do not have to take humanities subjects, so this fact needs to be stated (and is in the previous sentence). Some earlier editors (and at least one biographer) mistook this for a sign of genius. However his skill with languages and interest in philosophy becomes relevant later on. I've cut out the English teacher as suggested. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppenheimer's interest in English and French literature is already mentioned at the start of the previous paragraph, so that point has already been made. The fact, that North American undergrads are required to take classes outside of their major, is pretty well known outside of the US, moreover since this is common in the US it doesn't say anything remarkable about Oppenheimer that he took those classes. Specifically mentioning them (while neglecting to mention what optional physics courses he took) however suggests to the reader that there is something remarkable about this choice.TR 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that it is not well-known. Removed sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I'm reading now, size has been reduced to: Prose size (text only): 55 kB (8846 words) "readable prose size". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edit

Comment Anybody else think the article would be better off without the infobox in the lead?—indopug (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not me -- an infobox is pretty standard, and a useful snapshot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this infobox is well-enough done not to be distracting. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria: image review edit

Images

  • "Oppenheimer's intelligence and charisma attracted students from across the country to Berkeley to study theoretical physics" - neutrality? source?
    • Can source to Bird or Cassidy, but snipped intelligence and charisma to adopt a more "neutral" tone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Oppenheimer_Los_Alamos_mugshot.jpg - check licensing tag. Surely the tags from File:Oppenheimer_Los_Alamos_portrait.jpg would be more accurate?
  • File:Los_Alamos_colloquium.jpg - source link returns an error
    • Found again, added another link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Trinity_Test_-_Oppenheimer_and_Groves_at_Ground_Zero_001.jpg - source link is dead
  • File:Einstein_oppenheimer.jpg - source link is dead
    • Have doubts about this one. I think it is from Life magazine. Replaced with another photograph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Eisenhower_and_Strauss.jpg - source link is dead
    • An unusual case where I uploaded the pic myself. Still there. The archives moved the picture. Updated the "source link". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Edward_Teller_(1958)-LLNL.jpg - source link is dead. Note also that the image has been superseded.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review 2.0 - I was asked on my talkpage to complete another image review for this article

  • Citation for "E" Award and for the white overshoes?
  • "Photo by Paul Ehrenfest's (1880-1933) designee" (File:Leiden_Kamerlingh-Onnes_Lab.jpg) - so was the photo taken by Ehrenfest or by someone else? If by someone else, is that person (and their date of death) known, to verify the licensing tag?
    • It was taken by someone else, but being his designee, Enhrenfest became the legal author of the work. He died over 70 years ago, so the picture fell into the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source link for File:Trinity_explosion_(color).jpg seems to be broken
  • File:Edward_Teller_(1958)-LLNL-restored.jpg - source site has reorganized, link should be updated.
    • No longer there. added a new ref. LLNL a mess. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall edit

  • Support—My concerns were eventually addressed. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for now.—A good read, but there are a few issues I'd like to see addressed:
    • "...the states of the hydrogen atom must have identical energy states." Please could you clarify this statement? Is it talking about the states representing the spin quantum number?
    • "...which they demonstrated that there was a size limit..." Shouldn't this be a mass limit?
    • "Rabi considered the appointment..." Who is Rabi?
      • Isidor Rabi. He is mentioned earlier. Changed to "Isidor Rabi". Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems odd: "Oppenheimer suggested a site that he knew well..." then "Oppenheimer was impressed and expressed a strong preference for the site." So Oppenheimer was impressed that he had made the suggestion?
    • Why is there no mention of uranium-235 or Little Boy?
      • Not so much of a technological challenge as the implosion device. Added a few words on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Oppenheimer concentrated the development effort on the gun-type device, which now only had to work with uranium-235 in a single group, which completed that later became Little Boy in February 1945." Kind of an ugly sentence. Please could you polish it up a little? Resolved.—RJH (talk)
    • I didn't see any mention of his involvement with the Interim Committee on Atomic Energy that was to decide how the bombs were to be used.[4] This seems important historically, so the lack of inclusion means it appears to fail the comprehensiveness requirement for an FA article.
      • Added a paragraph about the Interim Committee. Brought the Interim Committee article up to B class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jean committed suicide on 4 January 1944" Why is this relevant? Perhaps the context of the suicide needs to be explained?
      • Their affair ended with her death. Also goes to her depression, which was why he visited, and perhaps why he did not break it off. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've modified the sentence in an attempt to put it in context.—RJH (talk)
    • "Oppenheimer testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee,..." When?
      • I found the following: "On June 7, 1949, it was Oppenheimer's turn to appear before a closed-door, executive session of the HUAC."—Bird & Sherwin (2005) p. 394–396. Please include.—RJH (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I updated the article.—RJH (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last part of this sentence doesn't quite make sense: "This was partly due to lobbying on the basis of the scientific community on behalf of Oppenheimer, as was the Fermi prize." Does it mean the Fermi Prize was due to the lobbying or to the ending Strauss' political career?
    • The following opinion seems a little off topic and I think could be removed without hurting the article: "(some research of this sort had occurred during World War I, but it was far smaller in scope)"
    • Did Toni commit suicide because she was refused security clearance? Was this refusal because of her father?
      • That was the reason her clearance was refused (added this) but who knows why anyone tops herself? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this case, it turns out she had just ended her marriage three months earlier and was suffering from depression.—RJH (talk)
          • Some words were added to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference to "the Super" is a bit obtuse. Was this "the Super Bomb"? Who made the quote?
    • Perhaps somewhere it should mention Fat Man and Little Boy?
      • I added the link to a "See also" section.
    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PresN edit

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links bu this is redirecting to a listing of all of the bios they offer, rather than the one you meant. --PresN 00:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth edit

Comments - the following came from a quick reading through of the article. Summary and views afterwards. Please feel free to strike as the points below are dealt with.

  • Lead
    The destroyer of worlds quote needs a citation.
    Unnecessary link to physics in second paragraph.
    Should "control" be linked to "arms control" when the sentence is about nuclear power? Nuclear proliferation might be a better link if you can rephrase that sentence.
    • The two were linked. Assistance with nuclear power required commitment to non-proliferation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    electron–positron theory would be a better link than electron-positron theory.
    • If there was such an article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point here is that we should have such an article. The closest we have is Dirac sea. Do a search for "Electron-positron theory" + Dirac, and also have a look at Dirac's Nobel lecture. When we don't have an article on something, it is tempting to link fragments of the phrase, but ultimately that can do a dis-service and sometimes a red-link is what is needed. Maybe ask at WikiProject Physics if they think an article can be written on Dirac's electron–positron theory. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very well. Switched to the red link. The article has very few red links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've struck the objection and will try and get someone to write a short stub at least on it. One of the reasons I've held out on this point is that Oppenheimer himself (as you've said in the article in the cite to Pais) thought it was one of his most important scientific contributions. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    should 'second' be capitalised in 'second World War'?
    • Yes, but changed to "World War II" for consistency. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life
    "immigrated to the United States from Germany" - is this identical to "emigrated from Germany to the United States"? I would write the latter, but if the former is OK, then no problem.
    • Yes, you emigrate from and immigrate to. So it is correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oppenheimer was a versatile scholar" - previous sentence referred to his father - may cause some momentary confusion.
    • Changed previous sentence to "his father" Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "threatening a boycott the class" - rephrasing needed
    "Oppenheimer obtained his Doctor of Philosophy degree" - this may confuse people who are more used to seeing this referred to as a "doctorate" or PhD.
    Added PhD in brackets. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early professional work
  • "He was appointed in September 1927, receiving one of 123 postdoctoral fellowships in physics it awarded between 1919 and 1930" - two points here: (a) 'it awarded' -> "awarded by Caltech" (saying 'it' is unclear here). (b) the point of the whole sentence is unclear - are you trying to say that postdoctoral fellowships to Caltech were rare in this period and that Oppenheimer did well to get one? If so, say that. If there is no particular reason to cite the 123 figure, drop the sentence.
    • Trimmed as suggested. "It" referred to the NRC, not Cattech. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    'struck a close friendship' -> 'struck up a close friendship'
    • Never heard of that idiom, but changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    no need to link to 'pacifist'
    Striking this, as I've changed my mind here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The image caption 'Oppenheimer attracted students from across the country to Berkeley to study theoretical physics' is fine, but what relation does it have to the actual picture used? The picture is from 1945/6 and doesn't fit in this section. It looks like it has been moved here to make room for other pictures elsewhere, but what you really need for this section is a picture of him from the 1920s and 1930s with some of his students, which would justify the caption used here. Or indeed any picture from the 1920s or 1930s. If none are available, leave the section without a picture, or look for another one.
    Removed pic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't give a date for the work on the Oppenheimer-Phillips process - in general, you should check that you have supplied a year for each major work of his that you describe.
    Is the plural of white dwarf star really white dwarves? I would say "white dwarf stars" and avoid the problem.
    • Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a search for "white dwarfs" and "white dwarves" and put the former spelling in the article - it seems the more accepted spelling. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll take this point elsewhere, as it relates to more than just this FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The paper titles should be in single quote marks, not double quote marks.
    • Uhhh okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not 100% sure on this, but it was what I would do. If there is guidance on this, please follow that instead. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interestingly, when the physicist and historian Abraham Pais once asked" - who said this was interesting?
    "Stock Market Crash of 1929" - should this be capitalised?
    • I don't know... it was like this because the Wikipedia article (and the corresponding one on 2008) has "Crash" capitalised. I assume there was some discussion there. Changed to "Wall Street crash" Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sub-header of "Private and political life" doesn't fit under umbrella header of 'Early professional work'.
    In the section about his affair with and then marriage to Harrison, you slip into using "Robert". I can see why, as you need to say "Kitty" to distinguish her from her husband, and "Kitty and Oppenheimer" doesn't work, but it is still potentially confusing - is there any way around this?
    • Changed to consistently call him "Oppenheimer" Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the 'Private and political life' bit, you skip ahead a bit too much. It might be clearer if you stick to introducing things that will come up later, without going into too much detail here.
    • This objection can be bundled in with the final comment at the end. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manhattan Project
    This section is nicely done, though it could be much longer, of course.
  • Postwar activities
    Image caption: "J. Robert Oppenheimer with his successor at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Norris Bradbury" - you need to say which one is Oppenheimer.
    Decapitalise 'Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki'.
    'Institute for Advanced Study' sub-header could go one paragraph down, letting the first paragraph be an introduction to the postwar activities section.
    'physicists tacking the greatest outstanding problem' - typo: tackling
    You say he left Los Alamos twice, once in the 'Institute for Advanced Study' and once in the 'Atomic Energy Commission'. It was the same departure, but it is not clear that he was at the IAS and the AEC at the same time. i.e. You don't need to repeat that he left Los Alamos, but refer back to where you said it before and then say he also took up a position at the AEC.
    Confusingly, you switch from 1947 back to 1946 within the 'Atomic Energy Commission' section. You should mention his work on the committee and the Baruch Plan first, and then the 1947 GAC appointment.
    You need to explain what the relevance is of the image in the 'Oppenheimer security hearing' section. I presume it is to show Strauss, one of Oppenheimer's political enemies, but this is not clear. You could rewrite the caption to make this point.
  • Final years
    Make clear the country for the Royal Society fellowship bit.
    "Robert Oppenheimer was diagnosed with throat cancer" - drop 'Robert'
    "Alexander hall at Princeton University" - capitalise Hall
  • Legacy
    Image caption needs to say which is Oppenheimer and which is Groves.
    "in addition to Kipphardt's play" makes no sense at all - you don't mention the play until later in that paragraph.
    The ending of the article is a bit sudden and weak (this is a personal bugbear of mine). Is there not a way to build to a natural conclusion, finishing with a nice quote, rather than ending on a rather trivial note (a listing of two biographies)? Anyway, that sentence will look outdated in a year or two.
    • Well my personal bugbear is the "In Popular Culture" section, because scientists and generals are not considered notable unless they have depictions in popular culture. So this is what is left of it after I removed the cruft. Moved the paragraphs around in an attempt to end on a better note. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still not quite happy with it. It's not that vital, but I do like to see some thought given to this. On what note do some of the biographies end? That might help guide things here. In terms of more respectable cruft, nearly every scientist of some note has an asteroid and/or lunar or Martian crater named after them. Oppenheimer has an asteroid and a lunar crater. You may want to mention those in the article: Oppenheimer (crater) and 67085 Oppenheimer. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added mention of the crater and the asteroid. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You list some of the books he published, but say nothing about them in the main article. Are none of them worth mentioning at all in the 'final years' section? Who arranged for the posthumous publications?
    • Another editor believed that bio articles should contain listing of book written by the subject. Do you want the section removed? I could have added a list of his scientific papers but thought that it would be too long. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the section, and I agree that any biography articles should have a listing of the books the subject wrote. I suspect, though, that you may not have all of them, and if you are only going to have some, they should be the major ones with some reason for being there. Any luck finding out who arranged for the posthumous publications? List of scientific papers would be too long, I agree (and the ones you have mentioned in the main text are good enough for now), though if someone else has compiled a list, you could mention that and direct the reader in that direction (do any of the biographies attempt to list his papers?). Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, Hans Bethe lists them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you think it is possible to mention this, kind of like a "further reading" bit? It would fit well under the books section. Some readers will appreciate it, I think, as that will give them a starting point to look in more detail at his scientific work. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would, if the link was not broken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Is this the broken link? Is it possible to use this link instead? From that page (p.209) to page 118, is all the papers, lectures and essays as listed by Bethe. And on a related point, that broken link is used in what is currently reference 31: "Bethe, Hans (1997). "J. Robert Oppenheimer". United States National Academy of Sciences. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/joppenheimer.html." - as well as the link getting redirected (as PresN pointed out), I think you have the date slightly wrong. What is there is a 1997 reprint of the 1968 article ("Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society Vol. 14, (Nov., 1968), pp. 391-416"). You may want or need to incorporate that into the reference, somehow, so anyone looking at the reference realises it is a 1997 reprint of a 1968 work. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think I've fixed this now. The changes I made are here. That deals with my objection and also fixes the broken link pointed out by PresN (which shows no signs of working unless someone e-mails them to say it is broken). If you are happy with this change, I'll strike my objection here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I thought the article was good, but it felt a bit unpolished and not fully integrated, Some sections were very good, others less so. The section I thought most needed rewriting was 'Private and political life', which needs to be carefully considered as to how to make it work with the later section on the 'Oppenheimer security hearing'. I'm also not convinced that so much space should be given to the section on the 'The Chevalier incident' - much more could be said about Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project and this subsection might not be the best way of handling this part of the story. I'm not sure how much rewriting you did of the existing article, but possibly you need to be a bit more ruthless, as it is easy to both write too much at times, and also lose focus at various points of the story. Sorry if that's too vague - I'll try and take another look tomorrow and see if I can put things a bit better. Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduced the Chevalier section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, this is enough to address my concern here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to strike the points that have been dealt with. Will respond on the remaining points inline. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One additional point: have you asked any members of WikiProject Physics to have a look, especially at the way in which his science is described in this article, to make sure nothing has inadvertently been misrepresented? I am going to have another look through and concentrate on the science aspects of this article, but someone more familiar with the physics involved here may spot things that others have missed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but as a FAC, it appears on their project main page and in the RSS alerts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to ask there about electron-positron theory anyway, so I will mention the article and see if anyone wants to give the scientific works section a review. Hopefully that will get some more eyes on that part of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One already removed the reference to it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miscellaneous
    You already use Bethe as a source, but have you looked at Bethe's entry for Oppenheimer in the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. I don't have JSTOR access, unfortunately, but those articles sometimes have details not mentioned elsewhere. You could, for instance, cite the date he was elected to the Royal Society to this source. I've also just found a free-access site for BMFRS issues. The Bethe article on Oppenheimer is here.
    • I do have JSTOR access, but not to the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society unfortunately. I downloaded Bethe's entry from the National Library. Thanks for the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The other major source for short but detailed and accurate summaries of the scientific work of a scientist (outside of biographies, some of which skip over the science) is the Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Those are also now available online, and I will link here to the Oppenheimer entry, as that should be included in the article. There are two DSB entries I could find, one from 1970 here (by Rudolf Peierls) and an update in 2008 here (by Silvan Schweber). The latter usefully gives a summary and critiques of the biographies published up to 2008 - that will help in deciding whether the Wikipedia article is comprehensive enough. Whether any further biographies have been published since 2008, I don't know, but if it could be confirmed that a check has been done for that, that would be good. One final point, the link to the Berkeley webpage from the latter DSB entry failed, but it is probably worth trying to track it down, and I found it here. Suggest adding that to the external links or a further reading section.
    • Will do. The article was originally started before 2008 but I think you'll find the references are very good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking, as the category correctly says, he was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society, not a Fellow.
    The Royal Society archives have pages on their fellows, but I can never work out how to link to them. Oppenheimer's page is here. I hope that link works.
    Following the link at the bottom of the page linked above, takes you here (again, I hope that link works), which is an archive entry for his Proposal for Foreign Membership. The citation is given there as: "Professor J Robert Oppenheimer of Princeton, N.J. distinguished for his contributions to many parts of molecular quantum theory.". However, I was unable to find this reliably given elsewhere.
    You mention this paper (Relativistic Theory of the Photoelectric Effect), but don't cite it like you do for the other papers. Citing it would be consistent, IMO.
    The source you cite as "Carson 2005" appears to be a collection of papers edited by Carson. See here. Or are you referring to a different publication?
    • Corrected this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You missed one reference that still says Carson alone. I'm not going to correct that because you need to cite the authors of the chapters within the book, not the editors of the book. While checking this, I also found the following things that need correcting in the references: (1) The following links from the refs down to the bibliography are broken: Haynes 2009, Smith & Weiner 1980, Hewlett & Duncan 1969, Stern 1969, and the capitalisation in 'hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 581–584' (currently reference 117) breaks it. (2) The Herken 2002 source seems to be cited both to a published version and to online unpublished bits - can you clarify things here? Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed these refs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Herken put some material up on the web. The Herken (2002) refs refer to the book; The Web references (72-74) are cited inline. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional suggestion, both for the article (the legacy section) and the external links, is the fact that there was a centennial conference and exhibit at Berkeley, and a link to it here.
    I've been checking the categories, and I see that the Oppenheimer article is included in Category:Presidential Medal for Merit recipients, but this does not appear to be mentioned in the article. The article is in Category:Deaths from esophageal cancer, but again this is not specified in the article (if it was related to his smoking, I would have thought the cancer would have been higher up, in the larynx or pharynx - but regardless of that, the category is being more specific than the article, which is not good). Indeed, in the article, the term 'throat cancer' is a piped link to Head and neck cancer. If it is possible to be specific about the cancer, that should be reflected in the article. If it is not, then the category needs to be removed. Finally, I noticed the template at the bottom, listing Oppenheimer as President of the American Physical Society in 1948 - again, this is not mentioned in the article.
    • I'm going to have to add "check the categories" to my FAC checklist Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't take long and can avoid errors if strange categories creep in unnoticed. Another thing that rarely gets checked (from what I've seen) is 'what links here' (making sure that articles are not wrongly linking to this one - totally outside the scope of FAC, I should say before anyone gets worried). This is partly because the use of navboxes at the bottom of articles (like the APS Presidents one) dilutes the value of 'what links here', but also because some articles have such large 'what links here' lists that it is nearly impossible to maintain them. Here the article links are between 250 and 500, so maybe just about manageable. I scanned the list quickly, and spotted some interesting ones (I'll list some below). Of course, some of these are trivial mentions, others less so, and many should only be one-way links, rather than both-way links, but I find checking 'what links here' a useful exercise, both to round out an article (if sources can confirm things) and to ensure internal consistency within Wikipedia. Back to the FAC, I see you addressed the esophageal cancer category - what about the APS presidency template and the Presidential Medal of Merit bit? Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given some of the concerns I raised above (and mystified as to the absence of an external links section), I went and read two previous versions of this article, comparing it to the current article. I read the January 2005 version that was promoted to FA in February 2005 and I also read the version that was demoted at FAR in April 2007. My conclusions are that the current (February 2011) version of the article is vastly superior to the version promoted in February 2005, and that the current version is much more tightly referenced than the April 2007 version that was demoted, but that at least two good aspects of the April 2007 version have been lost, namely the external links in the April 2007 version (it is not clear why all of the external links were removed at some point) and the April 2007 version correctly refers to the Centennial conference and proceedings, whereas the current version did not, until I pointed this out earlier today. If it had been a new source being introduced, I could understand that, but how can such information get lost between April 2007 and now? As I said, overall, the article is much improved, but I'd like to review the history of the changes betwen April 2007 and now before I'm ready to support.
    • Mea culpa. I eliminated the external links because it had become a repository of random links. Some of them were moved to (or were already in) the references; some were broken; others were just links that had been collected. I have restored links I think readers would find useful. (The online exhibit link was broken) I don't know where the discussion of the centennial went. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of notes on some awards and a lecture. Regarding the Presidential Medal of Merit, a picture of the presentation is here, and a source is here. That source also mentions that he received the Army-Navy Excellence Award (1945), but I think this was actually awarded to Los Alamos and accepted by him on behalf of those who worked on the project. On Wikiquote there is a quote from the acceptance speech. Wikiquote also quotes from his Arthur D. Little Memorial Lecture, which is reprinted here. I'm not sure which of these warrant mention in the article, but I thought it worth mentioning them here.
    • The Army-Navy Excellence Award was given to organisations that supported the war effort. Over a dozen were presented to firms and universities associated with the Manhattan Project in October 1945. The presentation at Los Alamos was on 16 October 1945. It was officially to the University of California, and was accepted by Robert Gordon Sproul. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found an account of the presentation that led to that speech here. Whether that is the Army-Navy Excellence Award, I don't know (we also have Army-Navy "E" Award - is that the same thing?). That book (the letters and recollection ones) looks interesting, but there is so much out there on Oppenheimer it is difficult to know where to draw the line. Anyway, I've struck out what I wrote above. I presume the standard you are using on whether to include something is whether or not it is mentioned in one of the main sources you have been using, or mentioned in several sources, and/or mentioned by a single very reliable source. I realise that not everything can be included, and sometimes the decision is more what to leave out than to put in, so what I might start doing is putting some of these suggestions on the article talk page, as they may overwhelm this FAC. If you would like some parts moved, please say so and I will do that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Some non-trivial mentions of Oppenheimer in other articles on Wikipedia: Messenger Lectures, William James Lectures, List of Reith Lectures (this may be the most notable of the three lectures), Shelter Island Conference (this seems worth mentioning, if it is mentioned in sources), Take Aim (1974 film) (this is non-trivial because it is a Soviet film), Alan Oppenheimer (third cousin, probably not worth mentioning), American Federation of Teachers (probably not worth mentioning).
    Images (and magazine articles), see here for the 1954 cover (you already mention the 1948 cover). There are also three TIME articles here, here and here. The LIFE magazine (cover and article) is available here. The articles could be linked in the external links - they give a flavour of the popular presentation of him at the time.
    Another suggestion (like the centennial conference and exhibit, this could go in both the 'legacy' section and the 'external links' section) is the J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee. The series of memorial lectures (every year since 1972) has some pretty impressive names on it.
  • Writings on General Topics
    I've been checking the list given under "Books", and checking with the list given by Bethe in his 1968 article, and as far as I can tell, only one of the non-posthumous items listed there is a book. It is marked as a book in Bethe's list, and is The Open Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955). The other two non-posthumous items there are actually publications of lectures. Science and the Common Understanding (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954) is the publication of the 1953 Reith Lecture. The Flying Trapeze: Three crises for physicists (London: Oxford University Press, 1964) is the publication of the 1962 Whidden Lecture. The posthumous items listed under books are an edited and annotated collection of letters (I added that item recently), and two other items that I think are collections of his essays. I think the "Books" section needs to be re-done to reflect this, and also to note that Bethe (in his 1968 list) gives 69 scientific papers, and 126 items under 'lectures, speeches, broadcasts and newspaper articles' (if you want a source explicitly giving the number of papers, I can probably find something suitable).
    • Actually, The Open Mind is also a collection of lectures. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for looking that up. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The point I'm trying to make here is that Oppenheimer did a lot of public speaking on science. This is made clear by Bethe when he quotes Pais who says that any one of five elements would have marked Oppenheimer as special - four are currently covered in the Wikipedia article (his physics work, his work with his graduate students, his work at Los Alamos, and his work at Princeton), but the fifth is not covered enough yet: "his efforts to promote a more common understanding of science" - read this page to see what is meant by that. The Wikipedia article currently says:

    "in his speeches and public writings, Oppenheimer continually stressed the difficulty of managing the power of knowledge in a world in which the freedom of science to exchange ideas was more and more hobbled by political concerns. Deprived of political power, Oppenheimer continued to lecture, write and work on physics. He toured Europe and Japan, giving talks about the history of science, the role of science in society, and the nature of the universe."

    I think that aspect of things could be unpacked a little bit more in the Wikipedia article, hence my mention of the lectures and so forth, but more than that, what is needed a summary of the public discourse Oppenheimer was engaged in. Bethe devotes a whole section to this under the title Writings on General Topics (and gives a figure of "around 125" for his general writings). Bethe goes so far as to say that "Probably his greatest concern was the relation between modern science and the general culture of our time." That is what is meant by a 'more common understanding of science'. A good starting point would be saying something about what his 1955 book, The Open Mind, was about. That would be a good lead off into this aspect of Oppenheimer.
  • Adding various miscellaneous points in here as I come across them in my re-readings of the article. Should be done this weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Updated: 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a bit on this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I very much like what you added here. Do you think you could also squeeze in a mention of the Reith Lecture and Whidden Lecture? There are already there sort of (in the list of books), but not linked. Or are you holding off and trying to find a source to give more background here, as you've done for the William James Lectures? What I'm thinking is that the bit on the William James Lectures is an example of his public speaking in the US, but a bit of detail on his speaking in Europe and Japan would be really good, if possible. On the review as a whole, I'm now going to read the DSB entries and compare them closely with this article. As the review is getting a bit confusing now, would it help if I extracted any remaining points that I still consider are needed from the above, and put them in a new section along with any new points from my reading of the DSB entries? Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noting here that a paper was written in 2009 about Oppenheimer's Reith Lecture. See Radio and reason—the Reith lectures and J Robert Oppenheimer, Mark Brake and Martin Griffiths 2009 Phys. Educ. 44 474. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/44/5/003. The Whidden Lecture was recently republished in 2008 as part of City of the End of Things - Lectures on Civilisations and Empires. And I also came across another annual series of lectures named after Oppenheimer (presumably founded in his memory). It is called the The J. Robert Oppenheimer Lecture (in Physics), and takes place at Berkeley. Two prominent examples are here (2010 by Frank Wilczek) and here (2007, by Stephen Hawking). Unfortunately, I was unable to find out when these lectures started, so that probably scotches that idea. I do think that the Memorial Committee mentioned earlier should be included somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hopefully final thoughts on these lectures. I looked through the list that Bethe provides, and I noted where the lectures took place. Currently the article says "He toured Europe and Japan". The lectures outside of the USA took place in places like Paris, Berlin, Brussels and Geneva, so possibly "Europe" is compressing things slightly. Personally, I would give a list of the cities (it was Tokyo in Japan), rather than use country-level and continent-level descriptions. I also found the following, which may be more suited to the external links or in a recasting of the "Books" section into "Lectures and Essays" (or 'Lectures and Essay Collections' or 'Published Lectures and Essays' - that would cover everything except the autobiographical book with Rabi and the posthumous collection of letters, which also falls under the umbrella of 'autobiographical'): (A) UNESCO talk on Albert Einstein (published in the NYT Review of Books; (B) An address called 'Sorrow and Renewal' was delivered to the tenth anniversary conference of the Congress for Cultural Freedom in Berlin, and excerpts are given here - apparently it was published in full in the "February issue of Encounter" (have a look at that article for mention of the CIA and the Congress for Cultural Freedom!); (C) One of his other talks made a fairly sustained impact - it was a talk he gave as part of the bicentennial celebrations at Columbia University. The speech was titled 'Prospects in the Arts and Sciences', and was published in full here (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) and republished here in a book of the world's greatest speeches, and also here (Great English and American essays, 1957), and it is also here (though that site looks a bit extreme). Ferreting around a bit more, it seems it was actually a radio broadcast in 1954 (not 1964 as Bethe says): "Dr. Oppenheimer's talk on 'Prospects in the Arts and Sciences' was delivered over the Columbia Broadcasting System network, December 26, 1954, as the final program of the Columbia University Bicentennial series "Man's Right to Knowledge"." Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couple more thoughts: (1) Infobox: Stan Frankel, Samuel W. Alderson, and Robert Christy are mentioned in the infobox but not in the main article. This seems wrong, somehow, and in any case, the assertion that they are notable students of his will need to be cited. (2) The 'Books' listing is much improved, but is it not a requirement to either cite to library catalogues or provide ISBNs to allow verification? (3) The death of Oppenheimer's father is mentioned, but not the death of his mother. As he was said to be close to his parents, I would have thought it worth mentioning when his mother died, at least in passing. Do none of the book sources cover this? Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) No reference is required to back up notability, because "notability" is a Wikipedia artifice. People are notable if they pass WP:GNG; therefore they have their own articles.
      • (2) No it is not a requirement; see WP:CITE. However I've have reformatted them to use the cite templates
      • (3) She died on 17 October 1931. I've noted it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (1) Sorry, I was unclear. I meant references to support the assertion that those three studied with Oppenheimer. And also why some of the other students of his that have articles are not mentioned. i.e. This is a question not of Wikipedia notability (you could put people here that don't have article), but of "infobox notability" (to coin a phrase). I detest vague lists in infoboxes myself, but if there is one here, there needs to be a reason for people to be listed there.
        • (2) Noted, and objection struck.
        • (3) Thanks, objection struck.
          Carcharoth (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was re-reading the scientific work section, and noticed that the details are given for some of the papers (I provided details for one of them earlier) but not all of them. The one that probably does need direct mentioning is the 1930 one where "Oppenheimer wrote a paper essentially predicting the existence of the positron". This appears to be "1930. On the theory of electrons and protons. Phys. Rev. 35, 562-563." But note also the later papers on this topic.
      • There is no intention of listing all of his papers. Added this paper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, but how are you deciding what papers to mention? Which of your sources is guiding you here? BTW, I think you added that paper citation to the wrong paragraph. Carcharoth (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also the students in this section that I was referring to above. Several of them have articles, but are not in the infobox. Several of his students are in the infobox, but not mentioned in this section. Carcharoth (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have dropped a mention of students who are mentioned in the infobox but not in the article. Not all students did notable work; some became notable later, for other reasons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, I understand that, but which source is guiding you here? I scanned through Bethe's article, and he mentions others as well. There were lots of students that worked with him. How do you decide which to mention and which ones not to mention? Carcharoth (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppenheimer's estate: When his father dies, the article says this: "Oppenheimer immediately wrote out a will leaving his estate to the University of California for graduate scholarships". However, when Oppenheimer dies, the article is silent on whether this actually happened or not, though the disposition of the properties is mentioned after the death of his wife a few years later. Should the article not say what happened here if the subject of (some?) of Oppenheimer's money being used to set up graduate scholarships is mentioned earlier? Carcharoth (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was before he married and had children. As the article states, his estate was divided between Kitty, Peter and Toni. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, but that wasn't clear to me when I read the article. Only the disposition of the property is mentioned, and even then it is only mentioned after Kitty dies, not when Robert dies. Carcharoth (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I finally found the time to read through this, and I see two sources mentioned there that are not used in this article: (1) Bernstein, Jeremy. Oppenheimer: Portrait of an Enigma. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2004. and (2) Thorpe, Charles. Oppenheimer: The Tragic Intellect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. The latter at least (published in 2006) I think needs to be used for this article, as Schweber says "Thorpe’s investigation of Oppenheimer’s activities in the Congress for Cultural Freedom has revealed an important facet of his life in the aftermath of the revocation of his clearance." This isn't in the article at all yet. Carcharoth (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limited support - noting here my support for what has been done so far, but noting that I'm not entirely convinced that the article is comprehensive yet (suggestions about legacy and general works above, and see also what I say here), nor that the issues around the scientific works section have been fully ironed out yet. I'm still prepared to support though, because many issues raised above have been addressed, and I'm confident that the issues will continue to be worked on. If it is easier, I can summarise my remaining concerns here or on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin edit

  • Comments. I've only just glanced at this, but the overlinking jumped out at me. Europe, eighth grade, colitis, horseback riding, chain smoker, names of various towns. Could you go through the article and really pare this back, per WP:OVERLINK? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Butting in, I think most medical terms, including colitis, should be linked, but agree about other such things as you've listed above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have kept the medical terms and the towns but removed references to Europe and countries, except the Soviet Union (which some people do not know about because it no longer exists). Pruned a lot of other links, many duplicates. Kept "eighth grade" as no all countries/schools have it (mine did not). Also decided to keep "chain smoker" as these are rare these days (but removed a duplicate link). Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still a lot of blue. University of California, Berkeley, was linked twice in the lead, though arguably no link is really needed. First section: Jewish, New York City, Manhattan, Germany, Riverside Drive, third grade, fourth grade, eighth grade, undergraduate. It's too much, and it makes the text harder to read. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: When you quote Jungk quoting Oppenheimer in the lead, I see that on p. 201 of Jungk, but you say p. 109. That seems like a big difference for just a different edition. Also, he translates it as "shatterer of worlds." I agree that destroyer is the more common translation, but then it seems odd to cite Jungk for it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's on page 183 of my edition, which is a 1965 reprint of the 1958 edition. Some other editor keeps changing "shatterer" to "destroyer". Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked the 1958 edition, and it is on p. 201. So changed the ref to that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that other editor might be basing his or her opinion on this video clip, which is in the external links. Oppenheimer himself clearly says there "destroyer". I think some explication is needed (it is presumably, just a variability in translation issue), not in the lead but elsewhere in the article, to ensure this aspect of the article remains stable. Also, has this previously been discussed on the article talk page? I would be surprised if it hadn't been, if it has been an ongoing dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. I have added a second note, explaining the historiography of the quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an excellent note. I really enjoyed reading that. I haven't struck out my comment above, but that more than addresses any objection anyone could raise, I think. BTW, I left a note on the talk page about another video clip I found. It is from around 1949, and Oppenheimer looks a lot less like someone about to die two years later. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reading it through, I think it would benefit from some more work to even out the flow. The writing is stilted and awkward in places, and reads more like a list of facts at times than a flowing narrative. For example (my bold):

Oppenheimer developed numerous affectations. He was said to be mesmerizing, hypnotic in private interaction but often frigid in more public settings. His associates fell into two camps: one that saw him as an aloof and impressive genius and an aesthete; another that saw him as a pretentious and insecure poseur.[36] His students almost always fell into the former category, adopting "Oppie's" affectations, including his walk, his speech, his mannerisms and even his inclination for reading entire texts in their original languages.[37] His students included Melba Phillips,[38] Stan Frankel,[39] and Samuel Alderson.[40] Oppenheimer became known as a founding father of the American school of theoretical physics and developed a reputation for his erudition in physics, his eclecticism, his quick mind, his interest in languages and Eastern philosophy, and his eloquence and clarity of thought.[41]

The second last sentence is just tacked on, where it should be woven into the previous ones, and the last sentence has nothing to do with affectations, and reads like an afterthought. I offer that only as one example of an issue I see throughout the article.
There's also a huge amount of repetition of his name, as though we don't know who the article's about: "Oppenheimer did important research in theoretical astronomy... Initially, Oppenheimer's major interest was the theory of the continuous spectrum. ... Oppenheimer also made important contributions to the theory of cosmic ray showers ... Oppenheimer worked with his first doctoral student, Melba Phillips ... In 1935, Oppenheimer and Phillips worked out a theory now known as the Oppenheimer-Phillips process to explain the results ... As early as 1930, Oppenheimer wrote a paper essentially predicting the existence of the positron ..."
It's not always necessary to keep repeating his name to distinguish him from the other names mentioned. I can see a lot of work has gone into it, and I think it's nearly there, but it's not polished, and I think it needs that bit of extra polish to get to FA. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose edit

  • Support -- Having reviewed fully and copyedited, I'm ready to go on record with the first thumbs-up; structure, sourcing, images, and level of detail appear appropriate; I was particularly impressed with how the Early Professional Work section related achievements by his associates and students to Oppenheimer, without making any of these links seem forced (not always easy, even when it's all valid). Well done all round. Some minor points:
    • Bit surprised nothing from Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb found its way in, though admittedly I can't think offhand of anything that major you haven't covered from elsewhere
      • It's because I am a techno-military historian. When I read Rhodes all I see is references to other books I have. So I tend to go to them instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have slight concerns with possible weasel words in Legacy, the "many" historians and scholars mentioned, and hope that this phrasing might be tightened as you've been able to do in other articles where this has come up
    • Lastly, I agree fully with losing an In Popular Culture section but if you're mentioning some of his portrayals in major media then Fat Man and Little Boy (aka Shadow Makers) probably deserves a mention for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rjwilmsi edit

  • Ooops, a problem: You have two instances of "cassidy 2005" in your references; should be Cassidy 2005a and Cassidy 2005b. You have 36 cites to Cassidy 2005. Have fun... uh oh, same problem with Herken, Gregg (2002)... You only need to check all cites that are between pages 13–19 inclusive, since the second cassidy 2005 is only on those pages...
    • Done. There was another ref on the same line as the only ref to Cassidy's paper in Carson&Hollinger, so removed it, so only one Cassidy 2005. Removed Herken's name from the web references, so only one Herken 2002. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Bibliography but not in notes: Anderson, Leif E.; Whitaker, Ewen A. (1982) and Hollinger, David A. (2005).– Peacock.Lane 12:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency of style: ISBN format. Some (most?) of the ISBNs are hyphenated, others not. I think it would be better if they were all in the same format. (If you'd like to standardize on hyphenated ISBNs prompt me on my talk page and I've got a script to do it.) Rjwilmsi 21:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bodnotbod edit

  • Proof read done - I've read the article and found just one stray word which I've fixed. I'm pleased to commend the article for readability/clarity and on its great prose generally. Certainly a very interesting article. Whether it meets all our other criteria I shall have to leave it up to others to judge as I'm not fully fit for an exhaustive review. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. All of these edits are per WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "With his students he also made important contributions to the modern theory of neutron stars and black holes, as well as work on the theory of quantum mechanics ...": "work" dangles. (Made work? contributions to work?) Deleted "work on".
  • "As a teacher and promoter of science, Oppenheimer is remembered as the chief founder of the American school of theoretical physics while at the University of California, Berkeley, contributing significantly to the rise of American physics to its first era of world prominence in the 1930s.": "As a teacher and promoter of science, Oppenheimer is remembered as a founding father of the American school of theoretical physics that gained world prominence in the 1930s." I was concerned that some readers would be tripped up by the two meanings of "school"; also, the text seems to support "a founding father" rather than "a chief founder". Feel free to revert or discuss.
  • "... he contributed to American scientific organizations again, as director of the Institute for Advanced Study ...": I removed the first part and reworded. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "April 22, 1904": "April 22, 1904,". I fixed this one and two others. I know some people like to omit the second comma, but I don't know of an American style guide that supports that: see for instance Chicago 6.17 ("Commas in pairs"), 6.45 and 10.30; The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, at "comma" (the last two paragraphs); and AP Stylebook, at "months" and in the punctuation section. The other 7 points at WP:Checklist, such as "clarity" and "repetition", can affect readability; this point about when to use commas in pairs doesn't affect readability, but I'd still like for writers to get it right, because it's easy to learn, and because if you get it wrong in 50 different places, it's a mess to clean up.
  • "He had a younger brother, Frank Oppenheimer, who also became a physicist.": "Robert's younger brother, Frank, also became a physicist." "He" was dangling, since there were 4 males closer to that "He" than the one you meant (Robert).
  • "quieten down": "quiet down".
  • "apparently Oppenheimer would supply the mathematics ...": "with Oppenheimer supplying the mathematics"
  • "She flatly refused and reported this incident to Pauling. This ... disquieted him ...": "This" what ... the fact that she reported it, or the incident? "This" dangles. I guessed: "The invitation, and her apparent nonchalance about it, disquieted him ...".
  • "ETH": I generally stay away from fights over acronyms ... and I have to admit that I've generally seen this as ETH myself ... but I'm guessing most publishers would prefer "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology", possibly followed by "(ETH)". I didn't make the edit.
  • "Nobel Prize winning": "Nobel Prize-winning"
  • "Oppenheimer developed numerous affectations, seemingly in an attempt to convince those around him—or possibly himself—of his self-worth.": "Oppenheimer developed numerous affectations." States of mind generally require attribution. In this case, the reader can probably form the right conclusions just by reading the paragraph, so IMO we don't need the part I deleted, but feel free to re-insert and attribute that opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All sounds fine to me. The only one I was troubled about was changing "Frank Oppenheimer" to "Frank"; but they can click on the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have any objection to including the last name. I changed it because, generally, siblings are listed with just the first name (in the paragraph about the family) in our Featured Military Biographies. - Dank (push to talk)
Briefly jumping in here to point out another case of hyphenation (I can never work these ones out - I actually noticed the lack of a hyphen in 'Nobel Prize-winning' on an earlier reading, but forgot to mention it). Where should the hyphen be in "Long-range jet-bomber delivered thermonuclear "strategic" weapons"? Also, this has reminded me of a sentence I saw that didn't quite make sense: "Oppenheimer, drawing on the body of experimental evidence, rejected the idea of these being protons; he argued that they would have to have the same mass as an electron, but the opposite charge." - looking at the section in question, does anyone know what "these" is referring to there? My best guess is that Oppenheimer rejected the idea of positrons being as massive as protons, but that doesn't come across at all clearly and I'd need to read around this a bit more to be confident of correcting that sentence. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is me trying to avoid using the word "positron", and assuming that everyone knows what protons are from high school. Re-worded to Oppenheimer, drawing on the body of experimental evidence, rejected the idea that the predicted positively charged electrons were protons. Oppenheimer argued that they would have to have the same mass as an electron, whereas experiments showed that protons were much heavier than electrons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs)
    • My objection would have been dealt with either way, but that's even clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me again. Answering your question, Carcharoth ... ugh. I don't know what I'm going to do with that one yet. - Dank (push to talk)
  • ""I need physics more than friends,"": I made a guess that the comma wasn't in the quoted material: ""I need physics more than friends"". See WP:LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh again. I'm impressed with the article, and the prose is fine, but it's a very long article, and I'm struggling with J. Robert Oppenheimer#Scientific work. For instance, I wouldn't expect any reader to understand what "normalize the eigenfunctions in the continuous spectrum" means without a few linear algebra and quantum physics courses. There are all sorts of judgment calls here that I'm not qualified to make. Time to punt: Limited support per standard disclaimer, from the top of the article to the beginning to J. Robert Oppenheimer#Scientific work. Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got answers to my two main questions on Headbomb's talk page, I finished that subsection, and I'm copyediting starting from there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who felt that one Jewish faculty member was enough": I don't have any reason to doubt this, but can I ask if our evidence is solid? Is the reference particularly authoritative, or perhaps backed up by other sources? (One reason I have no problem believing it is that people say around here that Duke University is as good as it is in part because they didn't have a "Jewish quota" in the 1930s when all the Ivy League schools did.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is important to mention anti-semitism in the article. Obviously Oppenheimer was wealthy and therefore able to rise above it, but it still affected him. He could never become part of the establishment like Lawrence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an argument that history is storytelling with a college degree. This is a not uninteresting story: "Harrison had been married three times previously. Her first marriage, to a homosexual musician with drug addiction problems, lasted for only a few months. Her second husband, Joe Dallet, an active member of the Communist party, was killed in the Spanish Civil War." I respect your choices as an academic historian ... OTOH, my gut as a Wikipedian says that we don't put this much detail in unless we can connect it to the subject. How would you feel about this? "Harrison had been married three times previously, first to a musician and then to a communist who was killed in the Spanish Civil War." - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respecting your gut, I have removed the bit about the first husband. I think I was anticipating people asking how someone that young could have been married thrice. I leave in the part about Joe Dallet though, because he is notable. Red linked him to emphasis this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per standard disclaimer. Just finished copyediting. Wonderful article, our best work. I see Sandy has just promoted this; since you'll be headed back to FAC soon I'm sure, be sure to read her edit summaries in the article. One thing: I didn't understand "confessed he had fabricated"; I can't tell if it contradicts what follows in that paragraph, and the first time you mention what he had said, there wasn't any mention that he was fabricating it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read through her comments and corrected everything that I could find. The comment is not contradictory, because Chevalier was a professor of French literature, and not a scientist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket edit

Support - Racepacket (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Laser brain edit

  • Status on dealing with comprehensiveness concerns? Has RJHall been asked to revisit his opposition? --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm satisfied that my concerns were addressed. Thank you for checking.—RJH (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Del dot edit

Comments My dad and I are going to review the article together--he's a World War II buff and mentioned he's read a couple dozen books on Oppenheimer. I'll relay any comments of his and add andything I see on prose, etc. I have just a couple things right now from my initial read-through:

    • Minor points about organization in Childhood and education:
      • this sentence doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the paragraph, and jumps in time ahead of the rest of the section: Robert's younger brother, Frank, also became a physicist. Not sure how to fix it.
        • In this paragraph, I just wanted to tell the reader about his family. Re-worded to" "Robert had a younger brother, Frank, who also became a physicist." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think these two sentences are kind of repetitive: He entered Harvard College a year late, at age 18... then in the next para In 1922, Oppenheimer entered Harvard... I think you could probably rework by making a reference to the illness in the second para, then start the third with something like Due to the illness he entered Harvard a year late at age 18 in 1922 or something. That might also help you tighten up the second reference to the late start in that para, Oppenheimer made up for his late start...
      • Re-worded to "At Harvard Oppenheimer studied chemistry." to avoid repetition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any way that third para could be reorganized to have the info about his graduation at the end? Otherwise the rest of the para goes back in time.
    • Educational work, under Early professional work:
      • Pauling refused, saying that he was a pacifist. This makes it sound like the pacifism was just an excuse, but Pauling really did have those sentimentalities, right? Maybe you could say refused, citing his pacifism or something like that.
        • Not really. He did work on other military projects that had applications, such as explosives, rocket propellants, an oxygen meter for submarines and the patent of an armor-piercing shell. It was his wife who was the pacifist; Pauling did not espouse such beliefs until after the war. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think these last two sentences are a departure from the rest of the paragraph and section, and seem awkwardly stuck in here: Throughout his life he experienced periods of depression and was sometimes emotionally troubled. "I need physics more than friends", he once informed his brother. Also, wouldn't emotionally troubled follow from depression, isn't that redundant?
    • Scientific work:
      • Could this be explained in lay terms? The formalism of relativistic quantum mechanics also attracted his attention What is formalism?
        • Putting things on a solid mathematical basis. The theoreticians of the early 20th century threw up a lot of equations which described quantum and relativity. However when the mathematicians looked at them, they were aghast, as I was, fifty years later. There were divisions by zero, functions with positive and negative roots, series that diverged to infinity. It took many years for the physicists to work through this to their satisfaction. The ultimate outcome, renormalization, is described in the post-war section. I've added a link, so readers can find out more about Hilbert's formalism. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • NB: The article on eigenfunctions describes "the success of [Oppenheimer's] equation in explaining the spectral characteristics of hydrogen is considered one of the great triumphs of 20th century physics." I wish he had a reference for that; I'd include it in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general the article looks really great. I'll talk to my dad and add his comments in a bit. delldot ∇. 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a whack at these, Hawk, your call. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Hawkeye7. I don't know if we still do the thing here where you put addressed comments in a collapsey box, but I consider all of that to be dealt with. delldot ∇. 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from delldot ∇.

My dad says it's "a superb encyclopedia artice, I can't see a damn thing wrong with it." He does have some minor quibbles about the writing, so here they are.

  • The last sentence in the lead says he became the Senior Professor of Theoretical Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, a position previously held by Albert Einstein. But Oppenheimer was the director of the whole institute, he invited Einstein there, it's not like he followed Einstein. My dad says it's a minor detail of his life and doesn't belong in the lead. But if it does you could say something like 'he was the director of the institute and was instrumental in getting Einstein there' or something.
    • No, Einstein had been there since 1933; Oppenheimer arrived in 1947. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My dad mentioned that every sexual thing in his personal life is there, e.g. hitting on Pauling's wife, but other important aspects of his personal life that aren't scurrilous are passed over. On the other hand he says not to expand the personal life stuff because that would make it too long. Just thought I'd mention that comment.
    • I thought that the original article was too heavily weighted towards his personal and political life, so I expanded the section on his career as a scientist.
  • "Perro Caliente", literally "hot dog" in Spanish - shouldn't foreign words be italicized, not in quotes?
  • Oppenheimer was nominated for the Nobel Prize three times, in 1945, 1951 and 1967, but never won. Is this for physics or peace? If the latter, this is kind of misleading, a departure from the rest of the paragraph, which talks about his physics work. wouldn't you normally say 'nominated for the Nobel Prize for his work in ... '?
    • For physics. Not having won, we can only speculate on what for. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppenheimer earmarked 3 per cent of his salary—about $100—to support German physicists fleeing from Nazi Germany. The $100 must be per something. Is it $100 per year? Per month? A salary is an ongoing thing, not a lump sum.
    • It's an annual thing. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this sentence is awkward: In May 1942, National Defense Research Committee Chairman James B. Conant, who had been one of Oppenheimer's lecturers at Harvard, invited Oppenheimer to take over work on fast neutron calculations, a task that Oppenheimer threw himself into with full vigor. Is there a less wordy way to say a task that Oppenheimer threw himself into?
    • No, but the phrase can be stricken entirely. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how the 'However' fits these two sentences together: ...concerned about his chronic lumbosacral joint pain. However, Robert Bacher and Isidor Rabi balked at the idea of being commissioned.
    • Changed to "The plan to commission scientists fell through when Robert Bacher and Isidor Rabi balked at the idea."
  • In 1943, development efforts were directed to a plutonium gun-type fission weapon called "Thin Man". My dad says plutonium is an error - it should be uranium. They knew all along that plutonium can't be used in a gun-type fission weapon.
    • He is completely wrong on this point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My dad says 'infinities' makes no sense in this sentence: Under Oppenheimer's direction, physicists tackled the greatest outstanding problem of the pre-war years: the infinities in the quantum electrodynamics of elementary particles. Is there any way to change 'infinities' for layperson's terms?
    • High school maths is enough to know that you cannot cancel out zeros, or divide by zero Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, the links to regularization and renormalization explain it. You would have encountered them in high school physics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, we're both familiar with that concept, but it wasn't clear to us that that's what 'infinities' was referring to. Would 'divisions by zero' work instead? delldot ∇. 18:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My dad comments that in the quotations about losing his security clearance "they sort of miss the point of the whole idea of the security trial". He says it was really a struggle between those who wanted to build bombs and those who didn't, and the article "takes seriously the feint" by those who were targeting Oppenheimer for political reasons. Maybe you could find a quote from someone who argues that he was targeted for political reasons?
    • He is wrong again. The issue was the type of bombs that would be built. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several instances in the article where the passive voice is used, which I think makes the prose weaker and more wordy. e.g. "was blocked by Birge".

My dad called the article "a really professional and excellent job" and remarked on its neutrality and comprehensiveness. I certainly agree that it's well done, a great article overall. delldot ∇. 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more: Jean Tatlock, who had committed suicide a few months previously, in an earlier section it said she committed suicide on January 4, 1944, over a year previously.

  • No, the codename was selected back in 1944. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delldot ∇. 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for addressing these. The misunderstandings may have been due to my poor translation of what my dad was saying, I wish I could get him to actually edit. At any rate, we both agree that it's a superb article and I have no problem lending my full support for promotion. delldot ∇. 18:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes edit

The article needs a good deal of minor MOS cleanup-- please see my edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/J._Robert_Oppenheimer/archive1&oldid=1138464210"