Talk:Edward Condon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I will review this article. It might have been reviewed earlier if it had been placed in a more appropriate category of article awaiting review. My first impression is of a well written article. More comments to follow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts after a first reading

• The article has a great many short paragraphs. I think some of these should be combined, see here.
  • This has been resolved. Disavian (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• The section "Early life and career" starts with the word "He" and so do several other paragraphs in this section. I think this pronoun should only be used after Edward Condon's name has been given.
  • I believe this has been fixed as well. Disavian (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• What was his father's name? Where did he spend his childhood? What did he study at University?
  • I added his parents' names, but the "Early life and education" section could use some expansion. I don't have access to the NYT article that seems to source this section (or at least, I don't think I have access). Disavian (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I found and added a second source for this, which is accessible. Morse, Philip M (1976). "Edward Uhler Condon: 1902 - 1974" (PDF). National Academy of Sciences. Disavian (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Wikilinks needed for such terms as nuclear physics, solid state physics, mass spectroscopy, microwave radar development, uranium, atomic bomb and many others.
  • I believe this has been largely taken care of. Disavian (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

More later.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I'll try to look at some of these later tonight / this weekend. Disavian (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with those matters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A few more points

• "Within six weeks, he resigned as a result of conflicts about security with General Leslie R. Groves, the project's military leader, who had objected when Condon's superior J. Robert Oppenheimer held a discussion with the director of the project's Metallurgical Lab at the University of Chicago." - I find this sentence overly complex, perhaps it could be divided into two sentences. Was Condon just concerned about things Oppenheimer had discussed or was Condon suspected of doing something inappropriate himself?
  • I believe that I have clarified this, although User:Bmclaughlin9 will have to check the accuracy of my edit. Disavian (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Well done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Disavian (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• "Thomas shared none of the scientific community's international spirit and had other reasons, including the size of his committee's appropriation, opposition to the McMahon Act, and election year politics, to make a prominent case of Condon." - This sentence has too great a gap between its starting and ending sections. Rearranging it into two sentences might be better.
  • I took a stab at this one, although I'm not sure I entirely gleaned the intended meaning. diff. Disavian (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I gave this a shot/overhaul. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• "On July 15, 1948, the Atomic Energy Commission gave Condon his security clearance, allowing him to accessed classified information for his work as director of the National Bureau of Standards." - This sentence needs attention.
  • I rewrote parts of it diff. Disavian (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• " He criticized Thomas and the HUAC for leaking information obtained in closed hearings and then refused to reply to requests to testify in response to those leaks." - This sentence needs clarification. Who refused to reply?
  • I gave this a shot/overhaul. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• "Two Republican Congressman charged that Condom was being investigated as a security risk and was leaving "under fire,"" - I don't think "charged" is the right word.
  • Did you have any particular suggestions? Nothing better is coming to mind. Maybe I need to eat breakfast or something. Disavian (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Congressman "said"? The remainder of the sentence says: "a charge the Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer denied." I don't see why political back and forth can't be described as charge and counter charge. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• A citation is needed in the second paragraph of the section "Later career".
  • I think I found a relevant citation. Disavian (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• I think the last three paragraphs should be amalgamated. At the moment they include a number of sentences which are short bald statements.
  • I've combined some shorter paragraphs and managed to create some shorter sections, it's far more readable now. Disavian (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I worked on this entry as part of a series on victims of Joe McCarthy and got distracted cleaning up the entry for the Condon Report. My two cents:

• The summary has three terms in single quotes: 'witch hunt', 'follower', and 'new revolutionary movement'. Are these quotations or scare quotes or something else? To the extent that this is an attempt to summarize the section below where the phrase "revolutionary movement" occurs, I don't think it is an accurate summary. Nor does it take into account the fact that this is Condon's account of what was said, as the body of the article makes clear. And rather than witch hunt, why not say what happened: a campaign to identify and purge...
  • I'm not married to the phrasing there; I was mainly getting my ideas from the lead of de:Edward Condon. If you can think of a more neutral way to say it, be my guest. Disavian (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the words "witch hunt" which I thought could be better expressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't like to see a take-out quote like "I have lost a good deal of sleep..." unless it is in the body text as well. Also the quote would be less mysterious if the tag on the take-out said "to Robert Oppenheimer".
  • I like block quotes because they break up the text a bit; it would be preferable to find another picture of him to put in here instead. If you really don't like it, we can put it back in the body. Disavian (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• The tag "—Edward Condon, 1943." on the blockquote is unnecessary and distracting IMHO.
  • We could use something like {{cquote}} that has a smaller tagline. Disavian (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Does that look any better? Disavian (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• This sentence -- Condon was upset that Oppenheimer did not stand up to Groves, but he did not know that Oppenheimer had yet to receive his own security clearance. -- gets in the way of the discussion of Condon's dispute with Groves. Would it work as well in a note?
  • Yes, I think that would make a pretty good note. Disavian (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • How does that look? Disavian (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would go to any length to avoid the word "Indeed". Yea verily I would. It's gone now.

Cheers. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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.	Previous problems with the prose have been attended to and I have made a couple of minor alterations to the text.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article is well laid out in appropriate sections.
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.	Article is well referenced.
	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).	Article is well referenced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is sufficiently broad in scope.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This criterion met.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This criterion met.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable.
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.	There is only one image and it is in the public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The single image seems sufficient with regard to the contents of the article. The image has no caption but a caption is unnecessary in the context of the infobox.
	7. Overall assessment.	I believe the article meets the Good Article criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)