Talk:RV-1 nuclear reactor

Clarify

@Kingsif: can you give a few comments on what should be Template:Clarifyed? --MaoGo (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure: in the first sentence ("During the regime of president Marcos Pérez Jiménez, Venezuela became member of the International Atomic Energy Agency after purchasing the RV-1 reactor from General Electric in 1956.") I changed the word "to"→"from" for grammatical correctness; however, the word "to" obviously came from a translation of "por", which could have meant something different in the original context. I haven't read the sources, but these seem to be English, so I imagine they would clear it up (unless they are poor translations themselves...).

The second is about the phrase "the project" — is it a building project? An operation project? I.e. were the Americans helping to fund the construction of the site, were they supplying the reactor and nothing else, or were they getting it all set up? Starting a sentence like this assumes that the necessary context has been pre-established, but it hasn't.

The third is about the word "collaboration". It's not really the correct word here, and even so is still rather meaningless/adds nothing. What did Fernandez-Moran do? Is it merely that he worked with Perez Jimenez and became persona non grata when the regime fell? That doesn't seem worth mentioning, since presumably everyone involved would be exiled on that basis, so what?

Kingsif (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: thanks for the comments. In the first sentence it's indeed "from", I was juggling with English and Spanish references. Sadly, the second sentence is everything I could get from the sources. Third sentence: Fernandez-Moran was the supervisor of the construction, he did indeed became persona non-grata when the regime fell (why? I still do not know either) He went away before he could see the project finished.--MaoGo (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What about the Venezuelan government renewal of the reactor line?--MaoGo (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, some rephrasing could make the second part make more sense. That last sentence is also interesting, if it's in a source it would be great to add that he didn't see it finished.

As for the renewal, it's a little mixed up in the lead. It seems from reading it that the site was first home to RV-1, and recently became home to Pegamma, so it could be mentioned but briefly and separately, unless the actually site (i.e. the ground) is called RV-1? Re-read the article, the reactor is the same, ignore the comments. It could still be separated to another paragraph, but it was a second skim read that confused me :) (Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC))

Kingsif (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I modified the wording. When you can take a look (and add more Template:Clarify if you think are needed).--MaoGo (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)