Wikipedia:Peer review/Nuclear testing/archive1
Nuclear testing edit
Not too long ago I gave this article an overhaul and tried to really make it is a concise, to-the-point summary article about nuclear testing. I'm not sure what else to add, though. I've tried to avoid either long lists or overly technical discussions of nuclear tests effects which more properly belong at effects of nuclear explosions. The "History" section gives a pretty broad overview of the many subtopics one could talk about (health effects, political aspects, etc.), but I'm not sure if it would really help the article to turn them into individual sub-sections. Anyway, any thoughts on what could be added to this article would be much appreciated. --Fastfission 15:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- At first glance, the lead is probably too long, and the History section should probably be subdivided a bit. Also, I think a summary style section on effects would be appropriate. Circeus 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The is too long and covers details not mentioned elsewhere in the article - it is supposed to be a summary of the article. Otherwise I think you have done a good job of summarising the information.--nixie 02:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Great comments, both of them! I think much of the intro could be moved into a "types of nuclear tests" subsection, and I agree completely about breaking the history up a bit. --Fastfission 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, I'd agree that the lead needs to be a lot more focused. It's a great article. Adding inline references would take it a step closer to FA status. Creating a section on subcritical testing would be good too: what does it mean to have 'no yield'? what is the point of testing with no yield? TreveX 11:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Great suggestions! I was thinking that we should probably have an entire article on subcritical testing but had not gotten around to writing it up yet. --Fastfission 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, I'd agree that the lead needs to be a lot more focused. It's a great article. Adding inline references would take it a step closer to FA status. Creating a section on subcritical testing would be good too: what does it mean to have 'no yield'? what is the point of testing with no yield? TreveX 11:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to some info on the test detection techniques/technologies that progressed alongside the nuclear tests: the roles of seismology, atmospheric science and oceanography, and how the feasibility of detecting tests was crucial to the treaties. That graph is fantastic.--ragesoss 22:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Another great angle to pursue! Thanks. --Fastfission 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)