Talk:RaLa Experiment

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:RaLa Experiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'll take this one. Will crack on shortly. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:38, 19 April 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.	OK
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	OK
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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	OK
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not easy in a technical article, strikes a good balance
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine
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
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	OK
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing, anything remaining is very minor

Comments: There are quite a few here, mostly minor grammatical issues, linking and a few clarity issues:

• suggest you substitute "led by the Italian experimental physicist" for "of" in the lead Y
• I don't think the convert template works properly for measurements under one inch, but I suggest you put 3.2mm in parentheses after 1/8 inch in the lead for clarity. Y
• suggest you link Symmetry (physics), half-life, radiation intensity, nuclear fission, Electronvolt, Curie (the latter two probably need parenthetical explication), Precipitation (chemistry) (it is linked lower down but not at first mention), Atmosphere (unit), Roentgen (unit) (parenthetical explication), Nuclear fallout, oxalate (at first mention), hydroxide, Roentgen equivalent man Y
• Mixed tense of this sentence relative to the preceding and following ones. "Too low energy, and they are fully absorbed in the surrounding metal; too high energy and the difference of attenuation during the implosion is too low to be practical" suggest substituting "would be" for "they are" and "is" etc. Y
• "the latter still presents a potential problem in the area of the tests" is unclear, assume Radioactive contamination? Y
• "before they can record" → "before they could record" Y
• "obtained since February 1945" → "obtained after February 1945" Y
• "developed by the Luis Alvarez's G-7 group" Y
• convert template for 1 meter Y
• "catch" flaws or "eliminate" them? Sounds a bit informal. Y
• suggest you introduce Curie at first mention then use Ci consistently throughout Y
• The lanthanum-140 was being isolated Y
• not sure why we need to know what the designation of the personnel building was Y
• not sure we need the " Atmospheric Conductivity Apparatus" unless it is notable and redlinked. Saying it was detected by an aircraft is probably enough. Y
• the meteorology and fallout monitoring Y
• "virtually complete" → "comprehensive"? Y
• who is Staub? Hans Staub (1908-1980) Swiss physicist. Worked at Caltech, Stanford and Zurich. He's notable, so I've red linked him. Y
• suggest you state Thin Man was a gun-type weapon Y
• inconsistent date format Y
• "This however turned out to not be the case as the first tests on the reactor-produced plutonium in early summer 1944 showresulted in unacceptably high spontaneous fission rates, precluding use of the gun assembly and requiring an implosion design" Y
• " focused to implosion" → " focused on implosion" Y
• "The Rossi's group Y
• the Alvarez's group Y
• look at use of "however" and delete if unnecessary Y
• several duplicate links, two for ionisation chambers also Luis Alvarez, barium-140, and primacord Y
• Rossi is linked in full after mentioning him only by surname. Perhaps link him at first mention, then just surname Y
• explain "jets" Y Linked.
• "The electric detonators showned a significant improvement" Y
• explain "The gadget" Y
• "sincefrom around 1948" Y
• " with a two person crew" Y
• "in the building Y
• suggest you re-work " In May 1945 a dedicated building 3026-D (706-D) adjacent to 3026-C and designed to process sources up to 1000 Ci, was finished; the first run was on May 26, 1945, the same day as the last run in the 3026-C facility" - very clunky Y
• "As of March 1949, 31 shipments averaging over 2000 Ci each were produced there for Los Alamos" not sure what this means, from that date, or up to that date? Y
• "In October 1956, Oak Ridge completed their 68th and last RaLa run" Y
• "Later improvements allowed a reducingtion of" Y
• " Radiation levels on the third floor of the building reached 100 R/h, and were reduced to 100 mR/h by 7 am the next day" Isn't clear, it reached 100 and reduced to 100?
  • 100 rems/hour and dropped to 100 millirems/hour. That's three orders of magnitude. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• "contamination that a took long time" Y
• suggest "due to the half-life of barium-140, which is 12.5 days" Y
• "Shortly laterafter the process was improved Y
• "a barium sulfate Y
• suggest " had the tendency Y
• suggest " the highest radiation levels people had ever worked with at that time" Y
• " sources.The" space Y
• should rem be mrem? for consistency? No.
• not sure whether "a half-time" should be "a half-life" or whether you should link to Half time (physics) Y
• "usage of a much smaller Y
• "A similar "milking" process is now used Y
• suggest "RaLa tests continued even after the war, until 1962, during which the technology improved" then delete the stub sentence Y
• " were replaced" → "had been replaced" Y
• convert template for gallons Y
• "After 1962 the RaLa tests were replaced by more advanced methods. Currently several other methods are used for hydrodynamic testing" Does really tell us much, if it's worth mentioning tell us what methods are used now.
  • Pin dome, pin hydrodynamic and snowball. Does that tell the reader anything? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• " had a long enough half-life Y
• "Five attempts forat decontamination Y
• "covered over", or "buried" (or did they use concrete)?
• The neighbouring population was not informed about the tests until mid-1990s, because Los Alamos refused to declassify the documentation.? Or do they still refuse? How the the local population find out? Worth expanding this bit.
• one pic needs alt text (not a GA requirement)
• toolbox checks all green
• some 10 digit isbans could be converted to 13 digit per WP:ISBN (not a GA requirement)

Very interesting and well-written article, the technical bits reminded me far too much of my physics master at school... Just putting it on hold for the above points to be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Passing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)