Talk:Frederick Reines

Untitled

This article is poorly written and needs to be improved, though I'm not particularly eager to tackle the job at the moment. I am, however, removing the following text from the "Early Life" section: "Three other Eagle Scouts, from different troops, became Nobel laureates: Robert Coleman Richardson in physics, and Peter Agre and Dudley R. Herschbach for chemistry." Had these three scientists been in the same troop as Reines the coincidence would merit inclusion in the article. However, because they were in different troops, the sentence is about Eagle Scouts and not about Frederick Reines. It therefore does not belong in this article -- unless we also want to list all the Nobel laureates from New Jersey, NYU, Case Western, UC-Irvine, etc. Those lists don't belong in this article and neither does the Eagle Scout list. The same information is available at List of notable Eagle Scouts.

I agree with you about eliminating that sentence. In fact, I just eliminated it. Cardamon 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frederick Reines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You will have the review completed quickly as in the very first look, it looks perfect. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

• Checklinks show a very slight requirement of cleanup like domain path clearance, which would be worth a while for the article's tidiness. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of death section can be updated with few more inline cites for a better stability. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Removed. I cannot find evidence that the bridge (which is still under construction as the whole project is running years behind) has been or will be named after him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Early life section needs a rewrite for paraphrasing. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Two block quotes inflate the rating. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• ...was an American physicist who was awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Physics for his co-detection of the neutrino with Clyde Cowan in the neutrino experiment. He may be the only scientist in... will be a better opening. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Third paragraph of lead needs more wikilinks or piping. It looks almost bare. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Linked Hanford and Savannah sites. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Result

The article passed the GA review to gain a Good Article Status. The article is finely cited with a good coverage and meet all other GA criteria. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Dragon = Godiva device?

Is the "Dragon" mentioned in this article the same as the Godiva device? — Brianhe (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)