Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Discovery of nuclear fission/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2020 [1].
Discovery of nuclear fission[edit]
This article is about the discovery of nuclear fission in 1938. It is better known than other scientific discoveries because nuclear fission led to the development nuclear power and nuclear weapons. It is also controversial. The award of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for 1944 to Otto Hahn (but don't mention the war!) raised issues about whether the discovery was about physics or chemistry, and what indeed is meant by a scientific discovery. It has also been touted as an example of the Matilda effect. This carries over to Wikipedia as well; in the English language version, Lise Meitner gets more page views than Otto Hahn, but in the German Wikipedia the reverse is true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt[edit]
- Up to the start of "Discovery"
- Nucleus is double-linked in the lead.
- "that alpha particles were helium" Would it be accurate to say "that alpha particles were helium nuclei"?
- "Irène Curie" You probably have your reasons for not including the Joliot?
- " But after Rasetti went on his Easter vacation before preparing the polonium-beryllium source, " After and before makes it feel a little unclear.
- " and the radium continually produced a new batch.[33][34]" I might say "it" or "more" instead of "a new batch".
- "When they got to fluorine, they had their first success. Induced radioactivity was subsequently found through the neutron bombardment of 22 different elements.[35][36] " The "subsequently" makes it unclear if fluorine is included in the count.
- "with the longest-lived having 13- and 90-minute half-lives" Wouldn't you list the longest first?
- "What they found was three different decays series, all alpha emitters—a form of decay not found in any other heavy element, and for which Meitner once again had to postulate multiple isomers. They did find an interesting result: these (n, α) decay series" should "decays series" be "decay series"?
- I'm not sure you're consistent with hyphens in "half life" and "half lives".
- "Meitner departed for the Netherlands with Dutch physicists Dirk Coster." Were there multiple physicists or should this be "physicist"?
- Bohr Institute v. "Bohr's Institute". Wouldn't mind if it was lower case but ...
- Because it wasn't officially called that until 1965, but the name was in use before that. Corrected to use the possessive.
- This tale has a moral, tho' we knew it before.
- It's foolish to question the wisdom of Bohr.
- Because it wasn't officially called that until 1965, but the name was in use before that. Corrected to use the possessive.
- Why is Fermi linked in the US section? He's been mentioned many times.
- Was the Fifth Washington Conference at Princeton (which I found odd) or at Washington? You say both.
- It is The George Washington University (as an alumnus; J.D., 1990)
- Similar to The Ohio State University. Not gonna fly.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Is "straight forward" rather than "straightforward" an Engvar thing?
- A clearer timeframe for the first two paragraphs in "Nobel prize" might be helpful.
- "During celebrations in Germany of the 100th birthdays of Einstein, Hahn, Meitner and von Laue in 1978," Does it matter that Einstein was born in 1879?
Image review[edit]
- File:Hahn and Meitner in 1912.jpg — unclear copyright status, nominated for deletion
- File:DBP 1979 1020 Otto Hahn Kernspaltung.jpg — non-PD stamp, nominated for deletion
- Other images are OK for copyright
- Image locations meet MOS (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.
- There is a lot of over-linking; three cases in the lead.
- "discovered that barium had been produced". Optional: 'discovered that barium was produced'.
- Sticking with this wording. The point here is avoid giving the reader the impression that have that barium is what you get from fission. In fact, it is one of the less common fission products. It was found because they went looking for chemically similar radium. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Protactinium" section: paragraphs 1 and 3 commence "In 1913". Can a reader assume that everything in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 took place in 1913?
- "They noted that positron emission continued after the neutron emissions ceased. Not only had they discovered a new form of radioactive decay". Possibly a brief in line explanation/summary of what this new form of radioactive decay was?
- "Based on the table of the time" → 'Based on the periodic table of the time'.
- "because that was what was the case with alpha particles and protons" → 'because that was the case with alpha particles and protons'.
- "the neutral neutrons were more likely to be captured by the nucleus if they spent more time in its vicinity". Do you mean 'as they spent'?
- No, the distinction here is between fast neutrons and slow ones. Only the slow ones spend more time in the vicinity of the nucleus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure that it will be clear to a reader that a neutral neutron is the same thing as a slow neutron. Why not stick with "slow neatron", as used in the rest of the article? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- By "neutral neutrons" I mean that they have no electrical charge. If a proton approaches the nucleus, it will be repelled, because the nucleus is also positively charged. In order to hit it, they have to have enough energy to overcome this repulsion. But a neutron has neutral charge, so it can hit the nucleus at any speed. As it happens, if it comes in slow, it is more likely to be captured. Changed to "neutrally charged". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure that it will be clear to a reader that a neutral neutron is the same thing as a slow neutron. Why not stick with "slow neatron", as used in the rest of the article? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, the distinction here is between fast neutrons and slow ones. Only the slow ones spend more time in the vicinity of the nucleus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- "The current model of the nucleus was" → 'The model of the nucleus in 193X was'.
- "Nor was Noddack the only critic". Optional: 'Noddack was not the only critic'.
- "and provided a physical explanation by von Weizsäcker". Has the grammar gone awry here?
- No, but split the sentence. Nuclear isomerism isn't covered in high school, and some readers had it confused with chemical isomerism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- "when the energy of the incident neutrons had energy less than 2.5 MeV". Maybe delete "the energy of"?
- "when the energy of the incident neutrons had energy less than 2.5 MeV; when they had less". Should one "less" actually be 'more'?
- "contaminated with yttrium, which is also chemically similar." Delete "also".
- "though without her possessions". Did the missing possessions include the ring?
- "Hahn dismissed it as contamination". What is "it"? (This is a new section.)
- "used fractional crystallisation to separate it from its barium carrier". Should "it" not be 'them'?
- I (think I) understand why you do it, but your extended quotes, especially the one in "Eureka!", seem to me to fall foul of MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". I feel that the article would actually benefit if this were applied to Frisch's quote.
- "Nobel prize" section. The insertion of some dates in the first two sections would be helpful.
Excellent work, lovely prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Great work, happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]
Hi Hawkeye, mostly typos and questions etc as my knowledge of physics and chemistry is very sketchy (though I will say I could understand 95+% of this story of discovery) ...
- Otto Robert Frisch in full twice in lede - intentional?
- cathode ray tube - add hyphen per just above
- "had become accustomed to working closely with a physicist" and "Hahn was accustomed to collaborating with a physicist" - rep
- Two scientists at the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute (KWI) in - this link to the society meant to be hyphenated?
- "that alpha decay caused atoms to shift down two places in the periodic table, while the loss of two beta particles restored it to its original position." and in caption "beta decay shifts one element up." - I know very little about the periodic table but that caption means 2 x beta means 2 x up?
- because was the case with alpha particles - as was the case?
- for research, as adminstartion was devolved - typo administration
- Hahn's and Meitner's assistants - drop the apostrophe from Hahn's for consistency per "Cockcroft and Walton's feat" and per "defending Meitner and Frisch's claim"?
- Hahn and Meitner were joined by Fritz Strassman. Strassmann had received - double N
- on the grounds that World War I service was - her World War I service?
- Carl Bosch, the director IG Farben - director of?
- Before she left, Otto Hahn gave her a diamond ring he had inherited from his mother. - just out of curiosity, was that a friendly/romantic gesture or for Meitner to sell to gain some money?
- to separate them from its barium carrier - from their barium carrier?
- Breaking it up seemed far more dificult- typo difficult
- nucleus could become elengated and - elongated
- according to Einstein's formula E= mc2, and one-fifth - wlink E=MC2? Did Frisch include the space after the equals sign?
- Several more nomination followed - nominations
- In 1944 the Nobel Committee for Chemistry voted to recommended - recommend
- sole recipient of the 1944 Nobel Prize for Chemistry - in Chemistry
- During celebrations in Germany of the 100th birthdays - were they combined celebrations or individual?
- Nobel prize v Prize - (other than proper names) ie these 4: "was collecting his Nobel Prize in Stockholm" and "awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering" and "his Nobel Prize acceptance speech" and "using Bohr's Nobel Prize medal" have cap P but section head and elsewhere do not
- Gamow v Gamov
- No alts for images - intentional?
- caption Lise Meitner in 1946 with physicist Arthur H. Compton and actress Katherine Cornell. - spelling should be Katharine (even though file has it wrong)?
- Notes 46 Gamow, George - link
- Notes 48 von Weizsäcker, C. F. - link
- Notes 51 Noddack, Ida - link
- Notes 111 redlink typo - author-link3 Kowarsk add i
That's it. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Coordinator notes[edit]
I've requested a source review. Please let me know if there's one I'm not spotting. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Imma make some comments on the sourcing. First, the
|ref=harvcan probably be removed. It seems like the source formatting is consistent and has the requisite information. I note that the bibliography relies heavily on books written by physicists - I take these are good enough sources for a heavily historical physics article? Likewise, many of the references are to individual academic papers. I am a little too unfamiliar with the topic to judge NPOV on the subject matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)- Yes, most of the books in the References section are by physicists; Otto Hahn is the only chemist. The others are notable historians of science: Ronald W. Clark, Richard Rhodes and Ruth Lewin Sime. Sime wrote a biography of Meitner, whose article has been languishing at GAN since July. The article is almost entirely sourced from the secondary sources in the References section; the original papers are provided to allow the readers to look them up themselves, as is usual in scientific articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Source review - Pass[edit]
I'm not really sure if the above comments were meant to be a formal source review but just in case I'll do one below.
- University of California Press is given different locations in it's two uses: Berkeley and Los Angeles vs just Berkeley
- Princeton University missing location
- I'm not really sure what's going on with the second further reading link, it's missing a publisher/work/website and what are those words supposed to be? (needs a space in any case)
- OCLC for thesis here
- Ref 18 should give the German title and then the translated English title (like you do for ref 69)
- Is there an archive link that could be put for ref 22 since it's inactive now?
- Translated title needed for refs 31, 44, 48, 51 (I'm only bothering about this because you do it for refs 57, 69, 71)
- Are 115 and 116 supposed to have those dates as retrieval dates?
- Just minor things here – I don't see any issue with reliability, all scholarly/academic sources. Spot Checks not done since the user is an experienced FA nominator. Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just two things missed, ref 31 needs a translated title still and 48 should have the German title in the title parameter and the English title in the translated title one. In order to not hold up this nomination, I'll give a preemptive pass with the expectation that these two minor things are addressed. Good work here. Aza24 (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.