Talk:Joseph Rotblat/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 05:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments

This is an interesting article, on a fascinating figure. I have the following comments:

• Do we know how Rotblat came to the attention of, and impressed, Ludwik Wertenstein?

  Yes, we do. I have re-written that part. The author of my source thought that the 1773 Commission of National Education was so obscure that no one would know anything about it, but he reckoned without the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Most of his family had miraculously survived the war" - given that the article says that he was greatly affected by the murder of his wife in the Holocaust, "miraculously" seems a bit out of place and could be omitted

  Fair enough. It took a while for all the family to reappear. His brother Benjamin turned up alive in 1956. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• "campaigned for a three-year moratorium on all atomic research" - do we know how he undertook this campaign? (eg, through scientific or government contracts, through raising public awareness, etc?)

  A series of public lectures. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. With Bertrand Russell and others, Rotblat organised the first of these in 1957 and continued to work within their framework until his death. " - I'd suggest noting what the Pugwash Conferences aim to achieve.

  Added text from the Pugwash article to that effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• That all looks good - I'm pleased to pass this review Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)