Talk:George T. Reynolds/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 10:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2013 (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.	Prose clear and concise
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
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.	Yes
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
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).
	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.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

Firstly, thanks for contributing in major part to this article on Wikipedia. This article contains a history about an interesting historical figure. In particular, I think the lede does a good job of summarising the article and his notability. I do not however believe the article meets the GA criteria at the current time, as it is not broad enough. I'm happy to wait for improvements and continue the review in a reasonable timespan. LT910001 (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Some questions that were raised relating to broadness when reading included:

• What was his upbringing and/or early education like? (not expecting an essay, but there is a gap between his birth and graduation)

  He attended Franklin Junior High School and New Brunswick High School. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Was there a particular reason he didn't enlist in the Manhatton Project?

  "An avid surf fisherman and sailor, he aspired to join the United States Navy" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I mean, he had a degree in physics and a PhD, and was directly offered a job. He may have aspired to join the Navy, but was there a particular reason he turned down this offer? This article is certainly broad enough to meet GA status, so this comment will not hold up the promotion. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Who did he marry?

  Virginia Rendell. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this extra information. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• What was his work ethic, beliefs and influences?

  No idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• At what date did he enter the navy?

  In 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Did he make any significant contributions to the Los Alamos Manhattan Project? (papers, theory-wise)

  He helped design the implosion lenses,

Your added descriptions of these projects goes some way to resolving this question. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• What role did he play in Project Alberta?

  He worked with the X-Unit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Did his interest in cosmic rays eventuate in any scientific advances?

  The development of liquid scintillators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• In the Center for Environmental Studies and his studies of bioluminescence, did he, or under his stewardship, any advances or research occur?

  I think it was later used to genetically engineer mice that glow in the dark. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Some other specific comments include:

• Some subjects that could do with a one or half-sentence introduction include: Project Alberta (what is it?), the Port Chicago disaster (what is it?), Ronald Rau from Caltech and Joseph Ballam (why are they noted here?), organic crystal scintillators (a short description),

  Added some sentences.

Thanks, that's much clearer. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• As a primary reviewer of medical articles, it would be nice to know what type of cancer he passed away from. This isn't necessary to pass the GA review.

  Unfortunately not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is the name of his first son "G. Thomas"?

  Yes. American form of the name. Thomas is his second but preferred name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

All right. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I await your reply, and look forward to a discussion about improving this article in the future. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

Thank you for your (extremely!) prompt edits. I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done and I wish you well on your wiki-travels. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)