Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident/GA1
Latest comment: 2 days ago by Czarking0 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 22:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 01:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
This is going to be a big one but I'll review it. I'm going to start by doing an image review, then check sources, then prose. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much I know this article is dense but I think it is a very important topic. I got all the easy points you made. I am unfortunately very busy in my personal life right now but I will get to everything in the next couple days. Czarking0 (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I’m all good if it takes you time as long as you communicate that with me (like you’ve done)! IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2024 (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. | IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |
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). | See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | per above. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |
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. | IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | See comment below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |
7. Overall assessment. | I'm going to place this on hold since there is several unsourced sections of text and the citations need to be edited to be consistent (either use templates or don't, either use rp or sfn) and I have a feeling that may take awhile. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
- Is there a reason why you included sources in the lead? IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, although I didn't do that I would be opposed to changing it. If see read the 20 or so pages of talk page archives ( which I don't expect you to but I did). You will see that much of the disagreement between editors revolves around exactly what was said in the lead. Adding sources helped resolve this debate. Czarking0 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I figured it was considered controversial enough to include citations but wanted to double check. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, although I didn't do that I would be opposed to changing it. If see read the 20 or so pages of talk page archives ( which I don't expect you to but I did). You will see that much of the disagreement between editors revolves around exactly what was said in the lead. Adding sources helped resolve this debate. Czarking0 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The graphs and other diagrams should have refs in the captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wow you are right that is a big miss on my part. It is going to take me a while to find all those. Czarking0 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can I get your opinion on this photo? It is clearly marked as not free. I have been searching for other photos to replace it with. I think this photo is worse but it is creative commons. This photo is after the PCV was removed also creative commons. File:Exposed Reactor Pressure Vessel at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Unit 4.jpg
- Most of them are sourced on the commons pages but it may take some digging. best of luck. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I also would like your opinion on this photo since it seems like in its present form it was just made by one of the editors. Not sure what to do with that. Czarking0 (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ramakarl: Czarking0 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- If the photo you're referring to is the "Fukushima Nuclear Accident - Radiation Comparison" (at right), I am the author, and that map is clearly marked at CC0, Public Domain. It doesn't get any more free than that. Under CC0 you technically aren't even required to cite the source, although I would appreciate it anyway. This map was also featured as a 2-page spread in the journal Elements, and also in the journal Leonardo (Vol 45, No 2, pp 113-118, Apr 2012).
- ~Rama Ramakarl (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just realized you're referring to a different image regarding copyright.
- In any case, this map is CC0, and the Leonardo details could work if you need a direct citation for the map itself. (Article: Visual Communication in Times of Crisis. See https://ramakarl.com/fukushima/ for citation details).
- ~Rama Ramakarl (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. You got that right I appreciate your cc0 publication I was worried about WP:RS for that photo. I'll use the publications as the citation Czarking0 (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- hmm in the case of the second photo I'm not quite sure what to do with that. Since it contains a lot of detail I think it would be okay to include if it is properly sourced (aka the information it uses should be sourced on the wiki page). If not then I know there is technically an inline tag for unsourced images with info like that so I would say it is a bit of a prblem if there is no sources for it. In the case of the first photo, non-free content is allowed as long as there is proper rational behind it (which I believe there is but I'm not too experienced with copyright stuff). IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- For the first photo I want to tread carefully. Do you think the free alternatives I provided indicate that this photo is in violation of WP:NFCCP point 1? Czarking0 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ramakarl: Czarking0 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I also would like your opinion on this photo since it seems like in its present form it was just made by one of the editors. Not sure what to do with that. Czarking0 (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wow you are right that is a big miss on my part. It is going to take me a while to find all those. Czarking0 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ref 88 has no title. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- "Modi: India to build 10 more nuclear reactors with Russia" Is from a somewhat unreliable source. Is there a better source available? IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done added BBC source Czarking0 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to need a page number for ref 31 "Regulatory Effectiveness of the Station Blackout Rule" as it is 87 pages long. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not done coming back to this Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done Ok that was not a very good source for that claim because the original source is describing US regulation which generally speaking Japan followed but I still replaced it with a source for the actual incident. Czarking0 (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not done coming back to this Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm getting a 404 error for ref 44 "Fukushima faced 14-metre tsunami" IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- The archive link works fine for me Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Upon detecting the earthquake, all three operating reactors (units 1, 2, and 3) automatically shut down. Due to expected grid failure and damage to the switch station as a result of the earthquake, the power station automatically started up the EDGs, isolated the reactor from the primary coolant loops, and activated the emergency shutdown cooling systems. is unreferenced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- One air cooled EDG, that of unit 6, was unaffected by the flooding and continued to operate. The DC batteries for units 1, 2, and 4 were also inoperable shortly after flooding. is unreferenced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) was the first independent investigation commission by the National Diet in the 66-year history of Japan's constitutional government. is unreferenced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Commission recognized that the affected residents were still struggling and facing grave concerns, including the "health effects of radiation exposure, displacement, the dissolution of families, disruption of their lives and lifestyles and the contamination of vast areas of the environment". is unreferenced. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Taking a break at "Reactors" section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- No adverse health effects among non-worker Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the accident, according to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. is very close to the source according to [1] I'd either reword this or put it in quotes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done quoted Czarking0 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The formatting for citations isn't consistent here. At times you use plaintext citations and othertimes you use templates. Sometimes you use RP and other times SFNs. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed this is not great but also not part of GA criteria Czarking0 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- It actually is apart of the GA criteria. I might need to get a second opinion here but according to Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not “Any system that allows the reader to connect a specific sentence with a specific citation is an acceptable inline citation method. However, one system should be used consistently for inline citations.” IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed I was wrong Czarking0 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- It actually is apart of the GA criteria. I might need to get a second opinion here but according to Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not “Any system that allows the reader to connect a specific sentence with a specific citation is an acceptable inline citation method. However, one system should be used consistently for inline citations.” IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed this is not great but also not part of GA criteria Czarking0 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to start to assess some of the other areas while this is on hold. All acronyms (such as INES and NISA) should be spealt out in full the first time they are used. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not done coming back to this Czarking0 (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like you could cut back some of the detail and move it to the corresponding articles in the sections Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, International impact, Radiation effects in humans, and Treating contaminated water. Some of these sections may have less material to remove than others but every little bit counts. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree this article is a bit long. I think the talk pages debated this particular point in detail. I will have to reread them to see if there was some consensus there. Czarking0 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I do understand that it’s a complex topic so there may be areas where you can’t remove info but it’s worth giving it a try. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree this article is a bit long. I think the talk pages debated this particular point in detail. I will have to reread them to see if there was some consensus there. Czarking0 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Consider using bundled refs for some of the areas that have over 3 sources but this is not necessary. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed this would be better. I'll address that if I am working on one of those sections Czarking0 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Getting to all your points in due; however, I wanted to point out that citation format sfv vs rp, etc is not a GA criteria. It is for FA Czarking0 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is because Criterion 1 requires compliance with MOS:LAYOUT, and criterion 2 also requires compliance with the MOS:LAYOUT section MOS:REFERENCES. It says:
- “Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article.” IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think I now have all the sfn converted to rp and all refs use a template Czarking0 (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)