Talk:Luis Walter Alvarez/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:28, 22 March 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.	Have done a little copy-editing.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	OK. The details of marriage and divorce are not ideally placed in "Early work" but it's not a major issue. I've no idea what one is to do with line spacing when there are nuclide superscripts all over the place, guess it's untidy but unavoidable given the limitations of wikitext in browsers, unless one were to insist on writing them as "Helium-3" when in text, and putting the rest in images (or whatever) as equations. That would chime with rules about writing % as "percent", by the way.
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.	OK
	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).	Properly cited
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes it does
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Have removed a few POV words.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
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.	OK. Nobel image is tagged but lacks a description (not a showstopper)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	OK
	7. Overall assessment.	A readable, not over-technical summary of a great physicist. Nice work.