Talk:Niels Bohr/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 08:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI! I'll take this review, thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 08:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've outlined what needs to be done to make this GA quality below, thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 11:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Bohr persuaded King Gustav V of Sweden" Is there a reason the word King isn't hyperlinked with the rest of his name?

Mainly because that is the name of the Wikipedia article. But, on reflection, it isn't normal to link in the title.

"The rise of Nazism in Germany prompted many scholars to flee their countries" This sentence doesn't really make sense. As a result of Nazism, people fled from their countries? Could you make it clearer, do you mean they fled from Germany? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some fled from other countries. Fermi fled Italy; Teller fled Hungary; Placzek fled Czechoslovakia; Ulam fled Poland (good move that). Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Heisenberg, it seems" Could you remove the "it seems". Bit of a redundant two words I think★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm fairly sure the article is all good, i'll pass the article tommorow just incase I find anything else, thanks for the nom hawkeye ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	" greeted on this, his first wartime visit to Britain" This bit isnt very concise, perhaps just change to "he was greeted warmly on his arrival"? That would sound like they greeted him as he got off the plane, but in fact they did so in London. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] It isn't neccessary to state it was his first wartime visit, that is obvious from information provided elsewhere in the article. As it is, the sentence is quite convoluted. If we cannot find a way to rewrite the sentence, I would recommend removing it, as it isn't detail critical to covering the subject. Trimmed it back by removing the offending clause. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. 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:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I have found that citation 90 is inaccurate, the source quoted (Hilberg's "The Destruction of the European Jews") does not discuss Niels Bohr at all, and should be removed from both the article and the 'References' section. Shadedlemons (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"Michael Frayn's play Copenhagen (1998), which was performed in London (for five years), Copenhagen, Gothenburg, Rome, Athens, and Geneva and on Broadway in New York, and won the Tony Award for Best Play in 2000, explores what might have happened at the 1941 meeting between Heisenberg and Bohr. Frayn points in particular to the onus of being one of the few to understand what it would mean to create a nuclear weapon.[72] The play was adapted into a film.[73]" I would regard this paragraph as unnececssary detail, and WP:UNDUE. There is no need to add in that there was a play based on a meeting Bohr had in his life. The meeting formed a minor part of his life, there is no need for analysis in this detail of the meeting. Could you please remove it? The problem is that this incident has generated a substantial body of literature in its own right, with books on the subject, like Segrè's Faust in Copenhagen: A Struggle for the Soul of Physics. And for many people, Copenhagen is the first thing that comes to mind when the name Bohr is mentioned. But I've trimmed the section down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] I don't think it is neccessary to state how many years the play was performed for, or where it was performed. If you must keep it in the section, could you trim those bits out so as not to violate 3b please? Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] "These carried mail, freight and occasionally diplomatic personnel. Their flights, partly over enemy territory and frequently in poor weather, were often hazardous. Passengers on BOAC's Mosquitos were carried in an improvised unpressurised cabin in the bomb bay. Crew and passengers had to wear oxygen masks." These three sentences would constitute unneccessary detail, so I would ask that you compress it down into one, merely highlighting the danger of the BOAC flight, without going into such detail if thats ok with you I've trimmed this back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	"To prevent the Nazis" Please change to the Germans, or something similar, not all German scientists were nazis. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use rationale for File:Bohr-atom-PAR.svg? Could you please add one? It is licensed under the GFDL, so it does not require a fair use rationale. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ok thats fine, I missed that sorry Done Otherwise they all seem fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.