Talk:X-10 Graphite Reactor/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:35, 20 January 2016 (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.	and to co-sign it seems like something is missing here suggest This resulted in support by the U.S. government for research into nuclear fission In December,it was needs a space and that there were disadvantages? research and educational facility should Megawatt have an initial cap?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There are a few examples of duplicate linking, Oak Ridge, Tennessee in the lead, plus Manhattan Project, DuPont, Uni of Chicago, Enrico Fermi, Chicago Pile-1, neutron moderator, critical, plutonium, Plutonium-239, isotopes, and Eugene Wigner
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.
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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).
	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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Just placing on hold for a couple of prose-related comments to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)~~ Passing, all points addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Changes made [1]. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Hawkeye! You've made a technical subject very readable for the layperson. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]