Talk:Matthew Sands/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pax85 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I will be reviewing the article over the next week or so. I will probably do some minor copy edits here and there. This is, admittedly, my first GAN review, so I am not sure if I should feel sorry for you or not! Please hang on, as I have somewhat intermittent internet access at the moment. -Pax Verbum 23:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I found myself with some extra time today, so here you go. Before I give a final assessment, can you address the red sections and my comments at the end? If those are taken care of, it is sure to pass. Please let me know if you have any questions!-Pax Verbum 04:55, 10 August 2016 (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.	Please see comments below. If all of them can be adequately addressed, then I will change this section to "pass." I also went through and did made several minor copy edits myself. Everything has been addressed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There is one reference in the lead section. Some editors may not go for that. Also, it is duplicated word for word in the body. I think the quote (and hence the reference) in the lead can go. Regarding the Caltech section (and the reason why I marked this section as "no" for now: I agree with the previous reviewer that this section is more than just Caltech, even if he remained on the Caltech faculty that entire period (but I don't think that is the case). I would retitle the section "Later career" or something similar. Caltech in the section heading should be formalized, but if you take my previous suggestion, that won't be an issue anyway. Everything has been addressed, although the quote in the lead may have to go if this shows up at FAC.
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.	All sources seem current and are verified. Corrected one dead link.
	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).	Sources are varied and reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is referenced. Please see my comment about about a hidden sentence in the Caltech section below.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations were found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article touches on every major area.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays on topic and detail is consistent throughout, with extra detail added where necessary to build a complete picture of his life.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Seems fine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable and few edits have been made since the nomination.
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.	Image is in the public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	This won't impact the GAN, but is there a better quality/higher resolution photo of him somewhere? McKibbin's photo on her article looks just fine. Eventually, additional images would be nice as well.
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues were addressed, and in a timely manner.

Additional comments:

World War II

• "Sands was at the Trinity nuclear test site..." This transition from the previous paragraph is quite awkward and comes out of nowhere. It needs more clarity, such as adding a word or two that it was connected to his work at Los Alamos, or something similar. It made me feel like he had switched jobs completely.

  I am rather used to writing about the Trinity Test. See if the wording suits now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

MIT

• "One part, the expansion of nuclear physics, was spearheaded by physics professor Jerrold R. Zacharias" - One part of what? The new expansion? It's important to be very clear and avoid vague terms, especially for readers who may be new to the topic.

  Slightly reworded to make the point clearer Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Caltech

• There is a hidden sentence. Does it need to be included? I think it is an excellent addition, if the information is included in the source.

  I commented it out because I couldn't find a source. I know he provided answers to Feynman's problem sets. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah OK. I wish we could find a source! It's a great anecdote. I will try looking too. I'm on my mobile now, but when I get on for my "regular" Wiki session tonight, I will do one last check and then pass the review. -Pax Verbum 15:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes and for such a speedy response! I am promoting the article. -Pax Verbum 19:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)