Talk:John Clive Ward/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lead;
- Some basic context on "Andrei Sakharov"; a Russian scientist etc.
- The reader can click on the link if they want to know more.
- Some basic context on "Andrei Sakharov"; a Russian scientist etc.
- Section 1;
- Basic context on "Maurice Pryce"
- The reader can click on the link if they want to know more.
- Basic context on "Maurice Pryce"
- 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."
- context on "Chien-Shiung Wu" "I. Shaknov"
- Section 3;
- 1950–51 to 1950–1951, per MOS:DATERANGE, also there are similar instances in the article, fix them
- 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?
- Section 5;
- informing him that Albert Einstein would be spinning in his grave? I can't catch the point, better make it clear
- and statistical mechanics and the Ising model; "and" is repetitive
- 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
- 48.7% confidence, violation possible. It is from a blog, what is your stand?
- Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: