Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: —focus 05:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll take on this review. It looks like a very nice article, but it's long, so please understand if I take a bit of time to get all my comments up. —focus 05:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize — I've read through this article and it's very nice, but real-life duties will prevent me from being too active on WP for a few weeks. I'm going to list this as 2nd opinion so another editor can step in. Sorry again. —focus 05:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is incredibly long (Its text only proze size is 57kB, which is one of the longest I've seen to date). Having examined the first few sections, I think it is longer than it needs to be. There are quite a few sentences that can easily be left-out. For example, why is Oppenheimer's childhood address relevant? (While at same time forgetting to mention in the main text in what city he was born. From the same first section Childhood and education, I think the following sentences/phrases could be left out without a problem:
"His lecturers included James B. Conant."

"at least three original paintings by"

"with Herbert W. Smith, a former English teacher,"
- The article is still quite small. The bit about Conant explains the latter's interest in Oppenheimer further down; the paintings illustrates the family's wealth. The address is a signifier of social status. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - 57kB of readable proze is not small (see User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics for some perspective]]. About the bit about Conant, I think it is better to just mention later that he was a former lecturer of Oppenheimer. Right now it just sticks out with reader wondering why this bit of information is relevant.TimothyRias (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments: 1) note 1 should be referenced. 2) The article frequently references a "Cassidy 2005", the bibliography only contains a "Cassidy 2004" presumably these are the same book?TimothyRias (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The bibliography had a typo. It should have been 2005.
  - Note that references 115 and 116 (currently) are referring to a "Cassidy 2004". That is probably a typo as well.TimothyRias (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Corrected these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He was admitted to Phi Beta Kappa." (Saying this is meaningless unless you explain what Phi Beta Kappa is.)

With some aggressive editing I think the length of this article can be greatly reduced while increasing its readability. As it stands I don't think the article should pass GA criteria 3b.TimothyRias (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still small. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take over review[edit]

I will take over the review from where User:Focus left off. Racepacket (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Please fix these disamb links:Harper, James Conant, John Wheeler, National Research Council, Ordnance, Thin Man, and War Department.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I would move the following sentence from the lead to the Trinity section: "In reference to the Trinity test in New Mexico, where the first atomic bomb was detonated, Oppenheimer famously recalled the Bhagavad Gita: "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." and "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." "
It's already in the Trinity section. Do you want it removed from the lead? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is up to you. I personally would not have it in the lead section. Racepacket (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"eleventh floor of 155 Riverside Drive, near West 88th Street." - explain that this is in New York City.
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"admitted to graduate standing in physics" - please rephrase because the meaning is unclear.
The meaning is not unclear; the term is just not well known. I hope a brief explanation will do the trick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The change works. I just want all readers to understand.
"periods of intellectual discomfort and concentration" - please rephrase, perhaps "periods of intense thought and concentration" or just "concentration"
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"enough to reach one trimester" -> "enough to teach one trimester" ?
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This does not flow: " and professed to experiencing periods of depression. "I need physics more than friends", he once informed his brother.[34]" You should have a cite for "periods of depression." Whether one is depressed as nothing to do with valuing physics over friendship.
Re-worded. Ref added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" predicted the existence of what we today call black holes"-> " predicted the existence of black holes"
That term had not yet been coined. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about predict the existence of what have been later named "black holes"?
Run on sentence, "He claimed that he did not read newspapers or listen to the radio, and only learned of the Stock Market Crash of 1929 some time after it occurred, and never cast a vote until the 1936 election."
Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
add comma between "In 1934" and "Oppenheimer"
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Melba Phillips and Bob Server" -> "Melba Phillips and Bob Serber" ???
Corrected typo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Like many young intellectuals in the 1930s he" - do you mean Oppenheimer or Tatlock? Add comma after 1930s.
Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should the section heading be "Political views" or "Private life"?
The private is political. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please be consistent in referring to Oppenheimer by his last name rather than by "Robert"
It is consistent, except in a couple of places where it might cause confusion with his brother Frank. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete sentence, "During his marriage, Oppenheimer continued his involvement with Jean Tatlock, and evidently their affair." If you are stating that a married man had an affair, you should footnote the sentence.
Re-worded to make it more explicit. And added another reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Philip Morrison should be flatly listed as a Communist Party member. He joined a youth group and a campus club, but was not an active adult member. In general, I don't see what the article gains by trying to list which of Oppenheimer's students were communists. The source at p. 147 does in fact flatly list the four graduate students as being Communist Party members and indicates that "some" were active in a union that was organizing employees at the Radiation Lab, but this was much more complicated than the source describes.
He has a whole article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the fair treatment in the Philip Morrison article. But I think that the treatment here lacks a similar degree of fairness. Rather than speaking with the voice of Wikipedia in the "Private and Political Life" section, could you instead attribute this list to Oppenheimer's accusers in the "Security Board" section? We don't know if Oppenheimer encouraged his graduate students to become party members or if his students affected his political views. We do know that years later people tried to use his graduate students to discredit him. I have no reason to doubt the patriotism of any of them, so let's focus on the important point -- the accusation was used againt Oppenheimer years later.
Expand "This led to Cecil Frank Powell's breakthrough and subsequent Nobel Prize." Do you mean discovering the pi-meson?
Yes. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Government maintains a Community Center in the area, which can be rented." ->"Government maintains a Community Center in the area."
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Fn 38 is a dead link.
Now footnote 39, and still dead
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Please see comments above by User:TimothyRias about unnecessary detail. I disagree with him that Phi Beta Kappa needs to be explained if it is wikilinked.
I would delete "Many great scientists never won Nobel Prizes, and his lack of a Prize would not be odd had not so many of his associates won them."
Done. Hope this corrects the problem below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Article is a bit defensive about Oppenheimer not getting the Nobel Prize.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
How do we know that File:JROppenheimer-LosAlamos.jpg, File:Los Alamos colloquium.jpg, File:Trinity Ground Zero.jpg, File:Einstein_oppenheimer.jpg, File:Robert Oppenheimer 1946.jpg, and Oppenheimer_Los_Alamos_portrait.jpg are government works? Photos could have been taken by a contractor. Need to identify who the photographer was or to get permission from the National Lab and file it with OTRS.
The DOE and DOD say they are. That's good enough for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any citation to where DOE and DOD say that these photos were taken by government employees. As you correctly note, the Los Alamos employees worked for the University of California as a government contractor. If you are relying on a statement that the U of C gives its permission, then you should remove the "government works" template. Racepacket (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With File:Leiden Kamerlingh-Onnes Lab.jpg, we don't know the photographer, so we don't know his date of death or the expiration date of the copyright.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I am placing this article on hold for seven days. Racepacket (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good progress. Still need to resolve list of four graduate students; dead links; and provinance of photos. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. You fixed the dead link. Thank you! The link checker reports no more.
2. What do you propose should be done about the four graduate students? The way it stands, the reader can click on the links and read about the effects of the 1950s witch hunts on scientists. The four are a good sample; one's university stood by him; another had to leave the country; a third had to leave his profession.
3. The images all have to be tagged and non-free images have to have fair use rationales. They all do.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Congratulations. I have passed the article. Please reflect further on the graudate students and the provinance of the photos. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]