Talk:Nobel Prize in Physics/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll have this to you within a day or two JAGUAR  17:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• The lead has to be expanded and split into at least two paragraphs in order to summarise the article and comply per WP:LEAD

Done..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• "is an yearly award given" - a yearly award

Done..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• ""for the outstanding contributions for mankind in physics in the past year"" - this quote needs to be paraphrased as direct quotes are discouraged in the lead, especially in the openeing sentences

Rewrote..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• "year." It" - syntax error here, full stop should be after "year"

Done..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• "The first Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to a German physicist Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by the discovery of the remarkable rays (or x-rays)."" - this doesn't need to be in quotes again as it would sound great without them

Done..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Though Nobel wrote several wills during his lifetime, the last was written a little over a year before he died" - this makes it sound like he wrote his will after he died?

Fixed meaning..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• "that it was approved by the Storting (the Norwegian Parliament)" - no need for the extra "the"

Done..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Half of the Nomination and selection section is unsourced!

• Also I think that some of the smaller paragraphs in this section could be merged to create bigger ones, in order to improve prose flow

Done both..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• "has been "tested by time." In practice" - full stop should be after quote

Done..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Can the Ceremony section be expanded at all? If not possible it might be worth merging it

Merged..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Is the Laureates section necessary to be there? It has no content?

Left out cause there are no other links to that article. Inevitable, methinks. Remove??? -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

References

• No dead links, though the toolserver picked up one of the external links as a virus?

Arxiv is virus? Should I remove that highly reliable source? -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it was a glitch on the toolserver, don't worry about it! JAGUAR  18:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

On hold

Just some prose/organistional issues that stand in the way before this can meet the GA criteria. Also one of the sections contains little sources, so that will need to be addressed too. Everything else is relatively minor though so it shouldn't be too difficult to address the rest. Good luck! JAGUAR  15:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing them all swiftly, Herald! The article has improved greatly and looks good to go. JAGUAR  18:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)