Talk:Radioactive waste/GA1

GA Review

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

Archived messages

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

• Insufficient references:
  • "The nature and significance of radioactive waste"
  • "Sources of waste"
  • "Management of waste"
  • And most of the article
• Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include publisher and access dates

Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys, as you're seeing, the GA process can be somewhat arbitrary, as it can depend on which reviewer decided to pick up an article. What Gary King probably should have done, was to make some specific suggestions, and then give you some time to try and address them before simply failing the article out of hand with some vague comments. Please don't let this put you off: As you're a PhD, we'd like to keep you around and help you understand the culture here.  :)

There are other paths to promoting an article. One is to contact a relevant WikiProject, and see if they have an "A-class" standard. However, this doesn't look like a good option for this particular article, since their article review process appears to be shut down at the moment. So, my recommendation is to try a peer review. That will be a good way to get proper comments on what this article needs for promotion. --Elonka 01:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I did give suggestions on what needs work above. I don't consider myself a newbie to the process; I have reviewed nearly 200 articles at GAN. Yes, the process might be somewhat arbitrary, but there is no strict rule on what I should have done; I am always willing to continue discussions on review pages even after the nomination has succeeded or failed. Also, the thread between your and my talk pages is here:

---

Hiya, on your comments about the Radioactive waste article, what exactly was the problem with the sources in the Radioactive waste#Management of waste section? I'm not seeing what needs to be fixed. --Elonka 00:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The following paragraphs in the section need references:

• "Long-term storage"
• "After filling a cylinder"
• "The glass inside a cylinder"
• "Thus, Alfvén identified"
• "High-level radioactive waste"
• "In 1997, in the 20 countries"
• "In 1989 and 1992, France"
• And more

Gary King (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but wasn't this a rather rapid fail? Why not make some suggestions, and then give the nominator a chance to address the concerns? --Elonka 01:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nominations are sometimes "quick failed" when there are too many issues—in this case, and in most cases, major referencing issues—that it would be wisest for the nomination to be closed, so that editors can continue working on the article without any time restraints (which is unofficially seven days from when the nomination begins); there is no deadline. Gary King (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above was copied from User talk:Gary King and User talk:Elonka. Gary King (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Gary, my concerns are that with your brusque failing of this article's nomination, you are discouraging the nominator, and violating WP:BITE. A better path here would be to offer specific suggestions on how the article can be improved, or directing him towards other resources. Just saying "insufficient references" was not particularly helpful. Heck, even I didn't understand what you meant, and I'm a longterm experienced editor. Mervyn would have had no chance of deciphering your review. --Elonka 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the biggest problem with the article is that there are too few inline citations; it should have more, per WP:CITE. Several paragraphs and even a few sections are completely uncited, so we cannot verify the information to third-party, reliable sources. Gary King (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you're of the "every paragraph needs at least one citation" school? Okay. So, if Mervyn does this, you would have passed the article? Or would it be the case that if he cleaned up all the cites and then re-nominated, that you'd do another quick fail on some other point? --Elonka 01:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not every paragraph necessarily needs to be cited. But, could you tell me where the citation for the short "Chemistry" section is, for instance? Or "Pharmacokinetics"? Or "Philosophy"? Also, no, the references are unfortunately not the only problem with the article—they are usually the hardest to work on, though, which is why it's typically brought up first. A few minor issues include "Radioactive waste in fiction and popular culture", which is a section that probably shouldn't even exist, as there are surely countless of references to radioactive waste in works of fiction, most which are not notable. "Accidents involving radioactive waste" should essentially be a summary of "Nuclear and radiation accidents", and use a {{main}} template to point back to that article. Another minor thing, but external links shouldn't appear in the article's body; they belong in the "External links" section. I assure you, that if those were the only problems, and there were no referencing problems, then I would not quick fail the article. Probably most—about 95% or so—of the articles that I quick fail are done because of insufficient references. In other cases, I would gladly move on with a full review. Please have a look at this recent GAN review that I did: Talk:Guitar Hero World Tour/GA1. I would consider that a pretty thorough review; I am happy with it, and I think that the article has improved significantly afterward. Gary King (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have archived the above messages; let's start from scratch. Okay, the biggest issue with the article is that there aren't sufficient inline citations, per WP:CITE. A number of sections are completely missing inline citations, so let's start with those. I don't think they all need to be pointed out, but a few examples include the "Physics" section, "Chemistry", and "Pharmacokinetics", for starters. Gary King (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm working on the article now, mostly cleaning up stuff provided by others. Moved, rearranged, and referenced some, and expect to do more tomorrow. Rochdale was quite a trip, and Toronto is one of my most favorite cities. Lived there awhile, and been there many times. Clean city, friendly people. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, nice job so far on the article. The first thing that I think of when looking at it, is that the article appears to be very long. It is about 56 kb in prose (the average FA is about 20 kb in prose, while the average GA is about 10 kb). There isn't really much more that can be cut from the article, as most of this is notable information, but perhaps some of it could be moved to another article. In particular, I'm thinking that the "Management of waste" section could possibly be moved to its own article. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, titled "High-level radioactive waste management" so as not to include low-level waste, which would be another 50 kb. Also, there is a redirect from "high-level radioactive waste" to "high level waste" that may or may not have to be removed. I think I'll try that and then ask that the new article be reviewed instead of the old one. Is that doable? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying you want to split off "Management of waste", cancel the GA review for Radioactive waste, and instead request a GA review for the new article? Gary King (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if that's acceptable. I think the new article is ready now, "High-level radioactive waste management" and both are shorter now. Please inform if I need to do something or if you will do what is needed. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will do that. Gary King (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. New review will be at Talk:High-level radioactive waste management/GA1. Gary King (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)