Jump to content

Talk:John Clive Ward/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead;
    • Some basic context on "Andrei Sakharov"; a Russian scientist etc.
      The reader can click on the link if they want to know more.
  • Section 1;
    • Basic context on "Maurice Pryce"
      The reader can click on the link if they want to know more.
  • Section 2;
    • context on "Chien-Shiung Wu" "I. Shaknov"
      The reader can click on the link if they want to know more.
    • who refused to accept it; why was the thesis rejected and what was the summary of the argument that lead to the acceptance of the thesis
      The source says: "For some no doubt trivial reason, Kemmer was unable to make the trip to Oxford, and his place was taken by R. E. Peierls, who declared the thesis unworthy of acceptance. Outside the examination chamber, he privately suggested that the standard consolation prize of a B.Sc. topped up with an entry into his own empire in Birmingham... Fortunately, the internal examiner J. de Witt put on a good show of determination that the degree be awarded. R. E. Peierls retired hurt from the contest."
  • Section 3;
  • Section 4;
  • Section 4–5; why did Ward leave his job at Aldermaston? He career was going good and he was also titled "father of the British hydrogen bomb", but what was the reason to leave all of that and join an electric company, that too not a reputed one?
    He didn't get along with Penney. This is already mentioned, but added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 5;
  • Section 6;
  • Section 7;
  • One dead link identified
  • Dup links
    • Abdus Salam; para 3, section 5
    • Bachelor of Arts; para 3, section 6
    • quantum electrodynamics; para 2, section 7
    checkY unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 48.7% confidence, violation possible. It is from a blog, what is your stand?
    checkY It's always hard to tell who's copied who in a case like this, so I have assumed a copyvio, and rewritten the offending section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]