Talk:High-level radioactive waste management/GA1

GA Review

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

I reviewed this version. Here's what I've got so far:

• Are there any external links that could be added to the External links section?
• There are several links to websites outside of Wikipedia, like "Euridice" and "Ondraf/Niras"; they should be removed and possibly moved to the External links section if they are relevant, per WP:EL
• Most of the references are formatted correctly, and User:Dabomb87 already managed to format a few more, but several still need to be formatted to include a publisher and an access date. This is for posterity, just in case the website is unavailable, then at least we'd have a bit more pieces of information to make it easier on finding the information somewhere else. Some of the references that need to be formatted include references 13 to 17 (inclusive), 21, and 25, to name a few which either are missing publisher and access dates or have bare URLs (the URL should not appear in the footnotes; rather, the page's title should be linked, as is the case for most of the references).

Okay, that's what I've got for now. I will dig deeper tomorrow in the morning. Gary King (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow, I will try to format the references more and fix other syntax issues so that you all can focus on content more :) Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I've managed to get all of this done now. I'll begin to look deeper into the article. Gary King (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Version reviewed

• Start the article by fitting in "High-level radioactive waste management" somewhere in there to be bolded, per MOS:BOLD.
• Is what is currently in the lead summarizing the entire article, or providing information that isn't in the rest of the article? It should be a summary of what is in the article's body, per WP:LEAD.
• What is the page number for reference 12?

Gary King (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rephrased the lead a little and I hope it works better now. Can probably shorten a bit more by taking out paragraphs on sea-bed and subduction disposal, if necessary. What do you think? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks better. Bear with me while I give some more comments; I'm not an expert on the subject:

• The article currently starts with "Of particular concern in high-level radioactive waste management are two". It's nice to see the bold text there now, but I'm thinking the article should perhaps begin with a quick primer on what the article is about, like "High-level radioactive waste management is the management of high-level radioactive waste, which is of particular concern because of its toxicity." Of course, not as boring or as pointless as that, but what I'm looking for is some sort of quick definition of what the phrase is about right at the beginning.
• The table of contents might be too long, especially for a fairly short article like this (it has 20 kb of prose). I've tried out two formats that might be better options: smaller headers and inline bolded headers. Do you like either one more?
• The "Belgium" section needs a reference
• That's it for now again. There isn't really that much wrong with the prose.

Gary King (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I agree about the table of contents and like the first alternative with smaller headers alot. The inline headers kinda get lost in the second alternative. Since you know what you are doing, will you please make that change when you have time? I'll add a sentence to the lead and see what I can do about Belgium.

Best wishes for happy holidays and may peace walk with you into the new year. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a few fixes. Otherwise, it looks good. Passing. Gary King (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)