Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enrico Fermi/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 GrahamColm 10:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Enrico Fermi

Enrico Fermi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Enrico Fermi/archive1

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Presenting one of the most important scientists of the 20th Century… Enrico Fermi Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some details from the infobox are unsourced - for example, that Steinberger was his student
• Bretscher title should use endash
• Check alphabetization of References
• FN3 is incomplete
• FN31: publisher?
• Be consistent in whether you include location for books, and if so when/whether state is specified. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• All these points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell

Support. All the issues I identified were resolved below. In addition, I made a few minor changes involving grammar and wording. (Feel free to revert any of these changes you dislike; any wording is fine, so long as it's grammatically correct and factually accurate.) I believe this article to be reasonably complete, well-sourced, appropriately illustrated, and in conformity with our MoS. I'm convinced that this fulfills all our criteria for a featured article, and I hope it gets the reviews it needs in order to be promoted. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved issues

First off, this article has a lot of strengths. The lede is excellent. The few citations in the lede are appropriate (one is a direct quote, the other a potentially-controversial statement). Every statement in the article seems to be cited to a reliable source -- I checked several and found the article claims fully supported and synthesized appropriately without plagiarism. That was particularly encouraging to see. I only found one image problem. Fermi is clearly an important historical figure, worthy of a featured article. The article seems well organized, and reasonably complete. But throughout the article there are grammar problems or places where the wording could be clearer. Here are some specific places I found right up front, but there are many more. Lede: He didn't really initiate the reaction "when it went critical on December 2", since he initiated it before that. You should probably say he initiated the reaction "that went critical on 2 December". Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Lede: "and when the B Reactor at the Hanford Site went critical". Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Early life: no comma needed after "As a young boy". Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Early life: "during the administration of anesthesia" (no "the") Removed, although it seem fine to me.. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Early life: There are too many dependent clauses and phrases before the verb in "The 900-page book, titled Elementorum physicae mathematicae, written in Latin by Jesuit Father Andrea Caraffa, a professor at the Collegio Romano, covered..." Try breaking into two sentences. Other comment I've just noticed that the FERMIAC is mentionned as an image, but completely undiscussed in the main text of the article. That seems a bit weird to me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Early life: It should be "student named Enrico Persico", not "student named Enrico, Enrico Persico". Done, although it seem fine to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) There are many other examples. A thorough proofreading for prose improvement would be a good idea. Perhaps GOCE would be able to help? I appreciate you quickly making the specific fixes I identified in the lede and first of nine sections. But I still think it needs a thorough check for grammar and style througout. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC) In addition, I found the following other issues. The section on "Post-war work" seems a little slim. In this period, he took several controversial stands and testified at a vey important hearing... but this is barely touched on in the article. His "Fermi Paradox" gets just a sentence. I don't know how important his later work related to pions and muons was -- the article calls the work "important" -- but it gets two short sentences. To me, the Fermi Paradox is just a footnote, but it does have its own article, and is much beloved of the SETI crowd. I will expand this a bit The usual pattern with scientists is that they do most of their important work while young. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) You're right that his career before 1945 is more noteworthy. And you're right that giving too much detail regarding (for instance) the Fermi Paradox would introduce balance issues. Still, on the whole, I think the post-war section should be longer, to balance the rest of the article. Currently it contains two paragraphs, a quote, and one sentence at the end. (Compare this to the roughly twelve paragraphs regarding the Manhattan project.) This post-war period deserves at least another paragraph, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC) I have expanded the section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC) File:ChicagoPileTeam.png might well be "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties", but I can't find any evidence of that. Are we sure it's a free image? What I know about the picture is that it was taken by the Manhattan Project photographer as part of the fourth anniversary. Switched the license to the LANL one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I can't find any source, either at LANL or at Atomic Archive, that says it was taken by a government employee. (Perhaps you have access to sources I don't?) Also, the {{attribution}} tag currently contradicts the PD tag. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC) The image is apf3-00232 in the University of Chicago archives. They say that it was taken by a Life Magazine photographer. Government sites attribute the image to the Argonne Laboratory, but its Flckr feed points back to the University of Chicago. That being the case, I have removed the image from the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Fermi's relation to Fascism is an important part of his life story. The article says "He later opposed Fascism, when it affected him personally." But aside from the stray comma, it's not clear what this means. How did it affect him personally? I would have thought it affected him personally when he was appointed to the Royal Academy by Mussolini, or when he joined the party. Is that sentence a reference to his wife and the racial laws that persecuted Jews? The article isn't clear. It refers to his wife and the racial laws that persecuted Jews. This is mentioned below. Should the sentence be removed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) It doesn't have to be removed, just clarified. You could simply say "He would later come to oppose Fascism", full stop... or even better, you could say "He would later come to oppose Fascism due to...", and then have something specific and sourced. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Moved some of the text up from below. The issue is somewhat controversial, but the facts are that Fermi was a card-carrying fascist, who openly turned against the regime after the 1938 racial laws. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Why are theories described in the past tense? I'm not sure what the standard is. Should it be "a model that incorporates the postulated particle" and "describes one of the four forces of nature" in the lede, for instance? The copy editors like the article to stick to the one tense, and not continuously shift between past and present. In any case, we are referring to the 1934 paper. The paper has stood the test of time, but our understanding of neutrinos and the weak force has greatly improved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) My issue is that the model still exists (even if it is now superseded), and still incorporates a particle and describes forces of nature. It's tricky, but written works are generally described in the present tense, assuming they still exist. Compare the FA Hippocrates: it uses past tense to say "Hippocratic medicine was notable for...", since no one practices that form of medicine anymore, but it uses present tense to say "The Hippocratic work On the Physician recommends that...", since the work still makes recommendations. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC) The papers still exist. The article links to them so the readers can view them for themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Why is one name in the infobox ("notable student" Jack Steinberger) cited, while the others are not? The others are mentioned in the article. Moved the mention of Steinberger into the article, and removed the reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Ah, that makes sense. Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC) When these are fixed, and when the article is given a thorough proofread for style and grammar, I suspect it will be worthy of featured status. – Quadell (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I can see that all issues I previously identified have been resolved. I hope to have time to do a thorough review (mostly for prose) either today or tomorrow. – Quadell (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments on section Manhattan Project I ran through the Manhattan Project section looking for prose issues. I found a few minor concerns which Hawkeye7 quickly addressed. The details of my review can be found on the FAC talk page.

Are you interested in reviewing other sections, Cryptic, and is there anything I can do to help? - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I just wanted to do a quick spotcheck of the section. Lately, I find section reviewing to be more enjoyable than full articles. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A good practice is that you reviewed one of the later sections of the article. Early sections (particularly the lead) often receive the lion's share of reviewer attention. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup yup, you've got the right of it there, mate. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• At the end of the "Professor in Rome" section, the article seems to suggest that Fermi's results were critized, but ultimately vindicated by his winning of the Nobel Prize. Earlier in the article, it is mentioned that no new elements were discovered, but rather that Fermi achieved fission and misinterpreted the results. That is Noddack was right, Fermi was wrong. This should be re-mentioned here for clarity. IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• I've read the whole thing, and this is an amazingly well written and enjoyable article. I haven't paid any attention to referencing, but as far as the prose and content is concerned [except that little thing in the Professor in Rome section, I've just mentioned], I give it the highest of thumbs up. I've added a redlink to I Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei because this is a notable journal and the article should be created. If anyone wants to do the heavy lifting, you can check out WP:JWG for some help on how to write journal articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done, and added a bit more about why Noddack's suggestion was not accepted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat better, but what I mean is read the following passage:

"The chemist Ida Noddack criticised Fermi's work and suggest that some of Fermi's experiments could have produced lighter elements, but was not taken seriously at the time because her team had not carried out any experiments with uranium, and their claim to have discovered masurium was disputed. At the time, Fermi dismissed the possibility on the basis of his calculations. He had not taken into account the "pairing energy" that would appear when a nuclide with an odd number of neutrons absorbed an extra neutron.

In 1938 Fermi received the Nobel Prize in Physics at the age of 37 for his "demonstrations of the existence of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation, and for his related discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons"."

What do you carry from this section?

• Noddack criticized Fermi.
• This was dismissed. Explanation for why it was dismissed.
• Then there's some explanation about something, but it's unclear if that's Fermi's response to Noddack, or what Fermi actually neglected.
• Fermi wins the Nobel Prize.

It should, IMO, be restructured this way

1. Noddack criticized Fermi.
2. Summary of criticism.
3. At the time this was dismissed. Explanation for why it was dismissed.
4. Fermi won the Nobel prize.
5. However in the end, it turn out that Noddack was right.
6. Segue into Manhattan / Chicago era.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Compare with the way it now reads, which I thinks conforms to your proposed structure:

The chemist Ida Noddack criticised Fermi's work. (1) She suggested that some of his experiments could have produced lighter elements rather than new, heavier elements. (2) Her suggestion was not taken seriously at the time because her team had not carried out any experiments with uranium, and their claim to have discovered masurium was disputed. At that time, fission was thought to be improbable if not impossible on theoretical grounds. While physicists expected elements with higher atomic numbers to form from neutron bombardment of lighter elements, nobody expected neutrons to have enough energy to split a heavier atom into two light element fragments in the manner that Noddack suggested, and it was thought still more unlikely that slow neutrons could accomplish such a task.(3)

There's a brief interlude while Fermi collects his Nobel Prize (4) and moves to the US, where he is informed about Lise Meitner's discovery of fission. Then:

Noddack was proven right after all. (5) Fermi had dismissed the possibility of fission on the basis of his calculations, but he had not taken into account the pairing energy that would appear when a nuclide with an odd number of neutrons absorbed an extra neutron. For Fermi, the news came as a profound embarrassment, as the transuranic elements that he had partly been awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering had not been transuranic elements at all, but fission products. He added a footnote to his as yet unpublished Nobel Prize acceptance speech to this effect.

The problem is that the reader almost certainly knows about fission, so may find it hard to understand why the idea was so hard to accept. I hope that the amount of embarrassment that it caused to Fermi, his team, and the the Nobel Committee will be understood. The reader may be impressed by how well he handled it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by Unus Multorum

This is a great subject to work on, and I commend the nominator on their excellent work both on this article and Wikipedia generally - as a relative newcomer to this end of town your excellent track record (and the fact you are a fellow Canberran no less!) gives me great inspiration.

My major concern with this particular nominee is that I don't feel it is comprehensive and detailed enough to be promoted as is to FA status. As a general point, a for a giant of the history of science this article would be certainly be quite a bit shorter than physicists of comparable importance with FA status such as Stephen Hawking, Robert Oppenheimer (which you did a great job on) and Johannes Kepler. That isn't immediate disqualification in my mind, but I felt reading this that there were a few important areas where I definitely felt the narrative moved too quickly. In particular I feel more could be done (which I've done my best to be specific about below) to flesh out some of the science and engineering of Fermi's work, which more than a few times really missed out on the steps to give the lay reader a full understanding. I've made some suggestions, and WP:TECHNICAL has good suggestions too. You are evidently very familiar and competent with this area, so perhaps you have yourself come to assume a bit too much knowledge - but I will admit that I actually used the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online article on Fermi at points to get the explanation for some of the theory and experiments he was working with, and I found that to be more detailed and stepwise in this regard. Now, specifically:

• General point: The title of Fermi's publications are usually given in quotations marks as an English translation, then in parentheses in Italian (inconsistently italicized). Certainly the general format is correct, but the ordering I think should be reviewed and perhaps discussed. I cannot find a clear ruling on the MOS in this regard, however looking at FA pages of others who have published in languages other than English (see for example Johannes Kepler and Honore de Balzac; also the GA article on Albert Einstein) the standard format seems to be the original title in the original language first and then the translation in English following in parentheses. I would suggest the format for this article be consistent with others, and at the very least consistent within the article.

  The relevant MOS is MOS:Ety, which I believe says English first, foreign in parentheses. Will try to make it consistent within the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lead, Para 2: "described one of the four forces of nature" - would it be better to just use the more technical term 'fundamental interactions' or something similar, as per the page its pointing to? I did understand the reference, but maybe it would be clearer to the casual reader if the general term 'forces' was not used.

  Changed to "four fundamental forces of nature" Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 3: "produce a Laue photograph, an X-ray photograph of a crystal." The dependent clause should be adjoined by an en dash or in placed paretheses here.

  Changed to an em-dash. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 3: "A sign of things to come was that the mass was expressed as a tensor—usually used to describe something moving and changing in three-dimensional space." Most readers, including me, won't get this and clicking through to tensor and mass makes it pretty daunting to figure it out. With an extra sentence or two, I feel it would be possible to make it clearer what what the significance of this paper was and add the extra background that will keep the uninformed in the loop. Unrelated to that, if it was a sign to things to come I didn't get it later in the article...

  Added "In classical mechanics, mass is a scalar quantity, but in relativity it changes with velocity." Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 3: "Using general relativity, Fermi showed that a charge has a weight equal to U/c2, where U was the electrostatic energy of the system." Again, why not go the whole way and let us know what c means in this context. I'm assuming speed of light....

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 4: "the electrodynamic theory and the relativistic one" is is possible to link through somehow to these theories?

  Only the first; relativity is already linked earlier. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  Linked electrodynamics. Relativity is already linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 4: "He proved that when close to the time line, space behaves as if it were a Euclidean space." Is it possible to be clearer to laymen what 'close to the time line' means?

  Added a link to world line, which explains it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  I've inserted a diagram, which should make it clear that it is no big. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 8: This paragraph only seems to say marginally more than the lead about Fermi's work on what is evidently now called Fermi-Dirac statistics. That maybe as much as can be said that is digestible in a biographical article, but given the importance attached to it in the lead I was sort of expecting more of a explanation in the body.
• Professor in Rome, Para 1: "competition (concorso)", yet earlier in the Early Life section you reverse the format, using the Italian first and the English in brackets. Like the titles, usage should be consistent in this regard.

  English first, per MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Professor in Rome, Para 4: "In 1928, he published his "Introduction to Atomic Physics" " If this is a textbook the title should be italicized, not on quotation marks - MOS:Title.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Professor in Rome, Para 4: Again, this really important discovery seems to be not much more detailed in the scientific details and process of reasoning/discovery in Fermi's work than you've included in the lead section. Can this be expanded upon? Can we get into Fermi's work in more detail?

  The whole thing is really well explained. That is all there is to it. I've even linked the original paper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Professor in Rome, Para 5: "After his difficult time with beta decay" - the only difficulty thus far seems to be that it wasn't published in Nature (and yet was published elsewhere), so this description seems at odds with the gist of the previous paragraph.

  No, that's it. His theories were not accepted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  Added a diagram to try and explain it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Professor in Rome, Para 6: "he decided to try it instead". Try 'that' instead?

  Very well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Professor in Rome, Para 6: "The paraffin induced a hundred times as much radioactivity in silver." Don't quite follow - as compared to lead? And what happened to the wooden and marble table top difference? Did they get to the bottom of that? Why is that mentioned?

  Silver was being bombarded. The table effect was due to the hydrogen in the wood. Added an explanation. It was an important clue. It also highlights how important even the smallest details are to an experimentalist. Added that it is the hydrogen in the wood that does the trick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent on the table bit, but there is still not reference for the 100x times point - induces 100x the radioactivity compared to its natural state? Or the lead he originally was experimenting with? Unus Multorum (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  This must be too difficult for the reader to follow, so I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's not, anyone can understand that Fermi tried paraffin wax after lead, you just need to be clearer in your use of language. In this case, "one hundred times as much radioactivity in silver" does not make it clear whether this result refers to lead, which he originally experimented with, or as compared to its natural state. If you are having trouble putting the science into clear language, there's a good page from the Franklin Institute | that really does this well and adds why slowing the neutrons is so relevant to the experiment, which I think should also be added here. Unus Multorum (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  No, the Franklin version isn't any better. You would have the same problem with its description as with mine, focusing on the unimportant lead, and still think that the hundredfold improvement was compared to a lead moderator. My description was clearer; a reader of the Franklin version might mistakenly think Fermi actually tried the experiment with lead. In fact, this version may be where you got that idea from in the first place. We'll go without mentioning the lead. Common sense also tells you that the slow neutrons are not more likely to collide with atoms than the faster ones. Again, I think that my version is more correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ah! OK now I get it, the lead was never used as a moderator - but you might understand how in your original phrasing, and in that secondary source I looked at, it seemed as if lead was somehow being used as the original moderator. And I do think the explanation of what neutron slowing is and why its important to this experiment is beneficial, as I don't think the average reader with a non-physics background will necessarily make the connection. Unus Multorum (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Added an explanation of how a neutron moderator works. Again, the article is about Fermi, not physics. The reader is supposed to turn to the sub articles for the detailed explanations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It describes it pretty well, I think. You can try the formula yourself: $\xi =\ln {\frac {E_{0}}{E}}=1+{\frac {(A-1)^{2}}{2A}}\ln \left({\frac {A-1}{A+1}}\right)$. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There's also some brilliant stuff in Fermi's paper on neutrinos, which is linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Professor in Rome, Paras 5 & 6: For the layman, too many explanatory steps are missing to make this easily understood. Why did Fermi reason neutrons, lacking electric charge, would not be deflected in this experiment? The science of neutron bombardment could be explained better here, or there could be a link somewhere to a more complete explanation of the process. And why is slowing the neutrons so important here? Its not explained, but becomes a major factor in why Fermi was so successful in this experiment. It doesn't necessarily have to go into all that detail here, but without a clear link to another article that does explain this experiment better, it's a bit too confusing, and I had to look outside Wikipedia to get the explanation. Also, given this was the work for which he would be awarded the Nobel Prize, I would imagine in merits a more detailed, rather than abbreviated, explanation.

  Because they have no charge, they cannot be deflected electromagnetically. I'll expand on how the experiment worked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Professor in Rome, Para 7: This paragraph, on the other hand, seems to be more stepwise and methodical in its explanation, and its easier to understand the science and criticism here.
• Manhattan Project, Para 3: "Fermi had dismissed the possibility of fission on the basis of his calculations" - a fuller explanation of this seems merited in the previous section, where fission is simply discussed as being broadly believed as improbable, not about Fermi's own views on the subject. This seems especially important given the relevance to his Nobel Prize winnning work.

  What more do you want me to say? I have expanded on it a bit.

  The reader might notice that if Fermi's team had bombarded the uranium with the slow neutrons, the uranium-238 would have indeed been transformed into plutonium-239, but they would not have found it, because they thought that plutonium was under osmium on the periodic table. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Manhattan Project, Para 5: "The two agreed that water could not be used as a neutron moderator" - why? Fermi established that it could be used experimentally earlier in the article, so why is it no longer?

  Water is a moderator, but not a sufficiently good one for a nuclear reactor using natural uranium, because the hydrogen absorbs too many neutrons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Great explanation, so why not put it in the article?? Unus Multorum (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is there now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Manhattan Project, Para 5: "pile of uranium oxide blocks surrounded by graphite bricks" is there is technical different here between blocks and bricks? Also there are some really useful free diagrams of Fermi piles around, one of those would be really helpful to illustrate how these piles worked/were constructed.

  No, the wording was just to avoid repetition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Manhattan Project, Paras 9 & 10: Given the great importance of Chicago Pile 1 in the history of nuclear research, I am very surprised the attention it gets here is on other characters. There is more dedicated to the politics, site selection and reaction to Chicago Pile 1 than Fermi's role in developing it and the science/engineering breakthroughs behind it. The page on Chicago Pile 1 is obviously the best place for the full story, but I would prefer a greater emphasis on Fermi's role and the breakthrough's he made in getting it to go critical - in fact the story of it getting to critical I read years ago in a science magazine and it was a pretty interesting story of that month of development where a lot of Fermi's genius came into play. Seems to me two or three reasonably long paragraphs should be dedicated to this really important milestone in nuclear science and Fermi's role in it.

  What more do you think should be said? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Manhattan Project, Para 12: "Revelling in the myriad of research opportunities that the reactor provided" - this is a bit of a hand wave, can't we more specific here?

  My sources aren't very specific. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's also done for the Oak Ridge explanation in the next sentence - what does 'on hand' mean? Did he simply witness it or was he involved in it somehow?

  Yes, he merely witnessed it. They got him out of bed to see it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Manhattan Project, Para 13: Suddenly Fermi is at the Hanford Site in Washington? In what capacity was he doing this work?

  It's all part of the Manhattan Project. Added a seque. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Manhattan Project, Para 14: "development of a thermonuclear "Super" ": the link preceding super doesn't explain what a "super" is in this context, would be good to know.

  Added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Manhattan Project, Para 14: Is there some conclusion we can draw about Fermi's work at Los Alamos? How much of a contribution did Fermi actually make to the end product?

  At Los Alamos? He arrived there quite late in the piece. He looked after the research reactor, and there was Teller's group working on the Super. It's really hard to tell. One of his most important roles was just listening to people explain their problemsHawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Post-War Work, Para 3: "opposing the development of a hydrogen bomb on moral and technical grounds. Nonetheless, Fermi still participated in work on the hydrogen bomb at Los Alamos as a consultant.": Wow, is there more on why he did this?

  Not really. An important point is that Teller and Ulam came up with a workable design. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Post-War Work, Para 4 & 5: Again some of these seemingly very important scientific discoveries are just listed, although they may not be as important or need as much attention as I am thinking.

Overall the prose and referencing seems very good to me - the article is eminently readable and of high quality, except for a few inconsistencies in the article on some minor style issues. But yes, personally reading it I feel the article doesn't go in depth enough into Fermi's work, and it's explanation of the theories and experiments in play are brief or not explained as well as they could be. But its a really important subject, if the nominator is interested I'd certainly be willing to help expanding this one a little. Unus Multorum (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone

Support. Another excellent article.

• "Along with Robert Oppenheimer, he is referred to as the "father of the atomic bomb"". Um. Two people cannot be one father. Options include: "Fermi and Robert Oppenheimer are each sometimes referred to as the "father of the atomic bomb"" or "Together with Robert Oppenheimer, they are referred to as the fathers of the atomic bomb".

  How about now? Both Fermi and Robert Oppenheimer are referred to as the "father of the atomic bomb" Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  Look, maybe see if anyone else has an issue. I still lean to the view that "both" can't be "the father" but that "each" can be referred to as "the father". But maybe this is overly pedantic. Certainly won't hold up my support.

• "At Los Alamos he headed F Division where he worked on the thermonuclear "Super". He was present at the Trinity test on 16 July 1945, where he used his Fermi method to estimate the bomb's yield." The reader has no idea what kind of thing the "Super" is. A reaction? A reactor? A weapon? When the next sentence refers to "the bomb's yield", we are left to guess that that is what the "super" was, but it should be made clear.

  Obviously not as well known as I thought. I have added a bit, and a link, so it now reads: At Los Alamos he headed F Division, part of which worked on Edward Teller's thermonuclear "Super" bomb. The reader can now click on a link to enjoy the whole story of Teller's Super. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• "On the phenomena occurring near a world line". By this time, the lay reader is going to be lost but i think the article is doing the best it can, bearing in mind it is a bio of Fermi, not a text on physics. But at least wikilink world line at its first occurrence :-)

  I've wiki-linked the first occurance in the paper title. The next occurrence was already linked. My recollection is that you aren't allowed to do this. I'll revert if someone complains. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  If there is a rule against it, then i think this is a case where i would favour WP:IAR. It is a sufficiently peculiar term - because of its non-standard use of common English words - that i think it is worth doing. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done. I think the diagram makes it all pretty clear. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The paraffin induced a hundred times as much radioactivity in silver when it was bombarded with the paraffin than without it." I didn't get this sentence. Too many "it"s, perhaps?

  Sigh. Re-worded again. When neutrons were passed through paraffin wax, they induced a hundred times as much radioactivity in silver compared with when it was bombarded without the paraffin. If you can think of a better wording, let me know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• "but he had not taken into account the pairing energy..." Starting to get lost a little again. Any wikilink for "pairing energy"?

  Added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• "and conducted an experiment using strips of paper to estimate the bomb's yield." Too cryptic. What on earth did he do with the strips of paper? Use them as some kind of slide rule? Coat them in photosensitive chemicals? Needs another half-sentence of explanation.

  Changed to: He simply measured how far they were blown by the explosion, and came up with a figure of ten kilotons of TNT Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is no mention of the bombs dropped on Japan or the end of the war. I appreciate Fermi may not have directly worked on those bombs, but given the entire strategic purpose of the Manhattan Project, it seems a little odd to go straight from the Trinity test to his post-war academic career...

  The two were never that separated. I'll add a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  Added a bit about the bombing, and Fermi's reaction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• "In a paper co-authored with Chen Ning Yang, he speculated that pions might actually be composite particles." Did this turn out to be the case? Or do we not yet know? It feels odd, leaving it hanging.

  Added a bit of explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• I find it odd that, despite his wife having written about life with her husband, we are offered no insights into their personal lives based on that work - nothing of her perspective on him or his activities or his politics. The cites of her book are confined to some (certainly useful) info about his early career.

  Is there anything in particular that you think should be included in the article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  Well I haven't read the book, so i wouldn't know. But given its subtitle I find it implausible that there is nothing there of interest about his personal relationship, personality, her view of him / his politics, for example. Partly my point is that this is a bio of Fermi and should cover everything as thoroughly as possible, not just the physics and career. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  Well, I've read it cover to cover twice. His relationship with the fascist party is mentioned. Added a bit more. I think that the reader will pick up a lot of the character of the man from the article. But if there's something specific that you think should be included, I can add it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

  I suppose I was interested in relationship, character, private politics... but as you say, you've read it twice, and have added more, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work, close to supporting. My main query is the last of my points above. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tried my best to address all of your points. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very effectively, thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• That infobox is long. I'm not sure the exhaustive list of his students, advisor and institutions are of so important. IMO the infobox would be much more effective if you restrict yourself to birth, death, citizenship, spouse, known for and signature.
  • No, it is not long; it is quite short compared with that of other scientists. And it does not exhaustively list all of his students, just notable ones. Your opinion is duly noted, but if you want to take it further, you'll have to go to ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Impact and legacy: apart from listing the awards and things named after him, this section is sparse. How did Fermi change the way physics was studied and the universe understood? I think rare success as both T and P physicist also deserves a deeper examination, as does the impact of his Fermi method (have his successor physicists adopted the method?).
  • Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Bibliography: We know they are all by him. So why use that ungainly ______ thing. I suggest reformatting like Neville Cardus#Books by Cardus.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Patents: again, surely there is a more aesthetic way of formatting the section. Why does link stretch across the length of each bullet point, instead of just the name?
  • It's because of the template that is used. Switched to the cite patent template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

—indopug (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I do wish that the next person who wants to write another book on Oppenheimer picks another subject instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Reviewed/supported at MilHist A-Class Review, although I've pretty well gone through it again from top to bottom here, not just checked diffs since I last saw it. Copyedited a bit so let me know if I misunderstood anything. Otherwise happy with prose, coverage, referencing and image licensing. Structure-wise, I don't see the need for a separate Things named after Fermi subsection under Impact and legacy, especially since it's only one paragraph, but I won't hold up support on that account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2013 (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. Graham Colm (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.