Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arthur Compton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Compton

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Compton was a Nobel Prize winner, and the director of the wartime Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Hawkeye, good to see you are still plugging away at the Manhattan Project. I have a couple of suggestions:

Yes, still plugging away.This has been going on for over three years now. There are still a dozen articles on the list to be written or improved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this seems uncited: "where he would stay for the next 22 years"
- Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compton's date of birth of September 10, 1892 appears to be uncited as it is not in the body of the article
- Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this sounds like it is missing something: "First postulated by Max Planck, these conceptualized as elements..." (perhaps "these were conceptualized..."?)
- Y Added "were". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in the Philosophy section: "First there is a range of random possible events, then one adds a determining factor in the act of choice." Is this a quote? If not, I wonder if it should be reworded. Additionally, it appears uncited.
- Y added reference. It is a just a Wikipedian attempting to summarise the material in the quote. Should this line be removed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd suggest finding a way to separate it clearly from the quote that follows, or refactor it so that it is clear that it is a summary of what he said, but it's not a warstoper for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in the References, is there an oclc or isbn etc for the Allison work?
- Y added the ISSN and OCLC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the duplicate link checker tool identifies the following links as overlinked: Manhattan Project, Metallurgical Laboratory, Washington University in St. Louis, Photon, Princeton University, and Arthur H. Compton House.
- Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than these points, it looks pretty good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks - please check that you are happy with my changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ -- I can't comment with any expertise on the science but aside from that...

Structure looks fine and I hope my usual copyedit's okay.
Content-wise:
- "became the first group of three brothers to earn PhDs from Princeton" -- does the source happen to clarify if they were the first three siblings to do this? Highly likely I know but just being careful...
  - Almost certainly, but my source says: "They remain the only three brothers to have earned Princeton doctorates... they later became the only three brothers simultaneous to head American colleges" Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we have a date (even just the year) he "became a physics instructor at the University of Minnesota"?
  - 1916. Affed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was particularly telling that diffraction in a crystal lattice could only be explained with reference to its wave nature, but It earned Compton the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1927." -- is there something missing between "but" and "It"?
  - Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Compton was intrigued by the possibilities of the research there into fluorescent lamps. His report prompted a research program in America that developed the fluorescent lamp." -- d'you think we could express this in some way that doesn't involve successive sentences ending with "fluorescent lamp"?
  - Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference-wise:
- I'd have thought Compton 1967 should be repeated in the References section, though I admit I don't know the MOS rule (if any) for this situation.
  - Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to use OCLC for all other refs so may as well for Hockey as well?
  - Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image licensing looks okay.
- The interesting one is the Time magazine cover. See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 28#First copyright renewal of TIME issues are for 1934 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, that goes back a-ways. Anyway, tks for all those actions/responses, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The prose looks good enough to head to FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Support/Comments I agree with Dank. Sources are good, images looked good, although that isn't my expertise. The only thing I would change would be to identify what the Compton affect was in the lead first sentence. For example: Arthur Holly Compton (September 10, 1892 – March 15, 1962) was an American physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1927 for his discovery of the inelastic scattering behavior of photons by electrons. His discovery, called the Compton Effect, led to additional discoveries that influenced microwave technology, understanding of gamma radiation, ... Well, that's the general idea, but I don't actually understand it. However, in the lead paragraph, I'd like to know a summary of what he discovered, ont that Compton discovered Compton scattering... auntieruth (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The point about the Compton effect is that it established beyond doubt that light had both wave and particle properties. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.