Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ZETA (fusion reactor)/archive2

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2018 [1].

---

ZETA (fusion reactor)

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I am re-FACing this article. It stalled out after two supports about a month ago. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the ZETA fusion reactor built in the UK in the 1950s, the largest and most powerful reactor of its era. ZETA is representative of the fusion field's history - a theoretical breakthrough suggests a new route to fusion power, a reactor is built to take advantage of the design, it proves not to work, and fixing it requires a larger and more expensive design. Unlike other examples, however, ZETA had the rather unfortunate problem of announcing it was successful in very public fashion in newspapers around the world and then having to retract the claim. In spite of this embarrassing event, ZETA went on to have a very productive career and provided several important advances in the field.

Sources review

• Ref 27: Publisher?

It's a patent, I don't think it has a publisher, per se.

I tweaked that footnote to make the nature of the reference more clear. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 50: Needs ndash in page range, not hyphen

Looks like XOR did this edit.

• Ref 109: Is the source here the book, in which case a page reference should be given? If the source is this online article, this should be clarified and the ISBN removed.

Good point, I have changed this to a web ref.

• Ref 118: The source seems devoid of information that supports the text

The cite is connected to his win on the JCM for the the ballooning transformation and more broadly his work in fusion. The body mentions "played a major part in developing the "ballooning transformation" for toroidal plasmas".

• Ref 121: I'm getting repeated timeouts here

I tried three times, once last night and twice this morning, with no problem. It's archive.org, I'm not sure it will ever be speedy, but I suspect your problem is because your local server hadn't accessed it recently and didn't have it cached. It might work fine now.

The original link timed out for me, so I changed it to the archive.org copy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sources: The Hill book is wrongly titled.

I cut and pasted the title from the Google page, can you be more specific? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I made that fix here (somehow, "atomic" had become "nuclear"). XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Other than these points, sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've started addressing these points. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by IP

What's a "shot?" You use this in quotes three times. Use a real word, please. I think, from starting to read the article, some of the jargon is used incorrectly, shortened phrases that slightly change meaning, mixing up somewhat close technical words. I found the article tricky to read because of this. I started editing, but there's too much. I enjoy reading FAs. I would not read this. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C2: I added an explanation of "shot". Can you be more specific on the others? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from John

I already reviewed this and the issues I raised have been fixed. Nice article. Support. --John (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment by XOR'easter

There are two redlinks, colliding beam fusion and ballooning transformation, which create a slight impression that the coverage is not comprehensive. The former is not so bad, because the name is rather self-explanatory, but the latter is awkward:

Taylor went on to study the ballooning transformation, solving a mystery found in high-performance toroidal machines.

This is the kind of vague sentence I'm used to seeing in forgettably sub-par science popularizations. Scientist solves mystery, film at 11. If this sentence could be reworked to be a little more specific about what the "ballooning transformation" is, that would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Support by Mike Christie

I supported this last time and am happy to do so again. Hawkeye7, you supported it last time so I hope you don't mind a ping. Maury, if this doesn't get promoted, ping me when you renominate it and I'll be glad to support it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

I reviewed this article last time and the issues I raised have been fixed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Has this had an image review? I see that the previous FAC had an image review. If the images are unchanged, I think that would suffice. Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No additional images have been added since my image review in July last year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.