Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ZETA (fusion reactor)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2017 [1].

ZETA (fusion reactor)

edit
Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ZETA fusion reactor built in the UK in the 1950s, the largest and most powerful reactor of its era. ZETA is representative of the fusion field's history - a theoretical breakthrough suggests a new route to fusion power, a reactor is built to take advantage of the design, it proves not to work, and fixing it requires a larger and more expensive design. Unlike other examples, however, ZETA had the rather unfortunate problem of announcing it was successful in very public fashion in newspapers around the world and then having to retract the claim. In spite of this embarrassing event, ZETA went on to have a very productive career and provided several important advances in the field.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
All the items in the first set were part of a press handout that went out shortly after the public annoucement in early 1958. I do not have the exact date. I do not have the publication dates on the last two., only the approaximate creation dates. Maury Markowitz (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have managed to track down all of these, mostly by finding the people in them. The cartoon was first published in 1984 so I removed it. The laser was published in Nature in 1964. The rest are all from the same press release. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Which version of English is this written in? I'd expect British English, but we have "skeptical", "aluminum", "canceled", and "furor".
All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frederick Lindemann was already Lord Cherwell in 1949.
41 actually, but I think I'm missing the point. Maury Markowitz (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Frederick Lindemann and Cockroft visited and were duly impressed"; bit it should be "Lord Cherwell and Cockroft visited and were duly impressed" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is clear on this: use the form that is most commonly used in reliable sources in English. "Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names, e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell")." In all of the references I have used in this article, they universally refer to this person as Frederick Lindemann, or Lindemann. Most do not even mention his peerage, or when they do, as a parenthetical afterthought. Given what I know of his history, I believe he treated it the same way. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

I'll copyedit as I go through the article; please revert as needed.

  • "The basic understanding of nuclear fusion was developed using the then-new field of quantum mechanics": since we haven't set a base date for this paragraph, "then-new" doesn't help much. How about "The basic understanding of nuclear fusion was developed starting in the 1920s, using quantum mechanics", or perhaps "using quantum mechanics, a field that came into being earlier that decade"?
Indeed, I've done a bit of editing here to make all the dates specified.
  • "heated to a thousand of millions of degrees": "a thousand" -> "thousands"?
Fixed.
  • "It was also the most powerful design, incorporating an enormous induction magnet that was originally designed to induce currents up to 100,000 amperes (amps) into the plasma, but later amended to 900,000 amps": I think there's something off here, grammatically; "later" pairs with "originally", but the design wasn't amended to 900 kA; it was amended to induce currents of 900 kA. How about: "It was also the most powerful design, incorporating an enormous induction magnet that was originally designed to induce currents up to 100,000 amperes (amps) into the plasma. Later amendments to the design increased this figure to 900,000 amps"?
Fixed.
  • "a wider effort started to release all fusion research at the 2nd Atoms for Peace conference in Geneva in September 1958": on reading this I first parsed it as meaning that the effort started at the conference. How about "a wider effort started with the goal of releasing all..."?
Done.
  • "Critically, Cockcroft had stated that they were receiving too few neutrons from the device to measure their spectrum or their direction." This sentence seems to belong at the end of the previous section, rather than where it is now. If I'm wrong about that I don't understand its significance.
I've expanded on this a bit. See if it makes sense now, I'm not entirely happy with it.
  • "The inaccuracy of the measurement and spurious results caused by electron impacts with the container led to misleading results": can this be rephrased to avoid using "results" twice?
and expanded as well.
  • "ZETA was used almost continually": suggest "continually" or "almost continuously"; "almost continually" is probably not the intended meaning.
Interesting; my gr checker normally gets that one.

The article is fascinating and very well-written. I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but as a lay reader with some background in science I see no obvious gaps in the narrative or the discussion of the science. I expect to support once the points above are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the points above are fixed; this is featured quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

edit
@Ealdgyth: It appears you are in the wrong article! I think you are looking at High Explosive Research? :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth:, any chance I can invite you back? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - dead boot drive has left me playing catchup all this month. Working on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Went with the one from Amazon. Reported it to Google Books.
Fixed first/last. Mike Forrest is the guy that went to Moscow to make the measurements, I'm going with reliable :-) He also reviewed the article.
Otherwise, everything else looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

edit
  • "Based on the pinch plasma confinement technique, its goal was to produce large numbers of fusion reactions, although it was not large enough to produce net energy."—What is "it"? The technique? The goal?
It is Zeta. I moved the statements around for clarity (and smoother reading too)
  • "Built at Harwell, UK, ZETA was ..."—What about "... Harwell in the UK, ZETA was ..."? (And it's the same opening grammar as used in the previous sentence.)
Or better yet, let's put in the actual location...
  • "bursts of about million neutrons per "shot" "—Surely it's "a" million?
Fixed.
  • "Measurements suggested it was reaching between 1 and 5 million degrees, a temperature that ..."—I guess I presumed it wasn't angular degrees for a second; but you need the ISO here. No need for conversion to Farenheit, either, in a scientific context.
I put in a K.
  • "neutrons being seen"—"neutrons observed"?
... hmmm, I tried that but it seems to read poorly. Anyone else have an opinion on this?
  • "early" × 3 in the first eight lines. "Major" × 2.
Various changes, let me know.
  • "unlimited power"—political or electric? Sometimes the two are blurred.
It's not power anyway, but energy.
  • "a scientific advance for Britain greater than the recently launched Sputnik had been for the Soviet Union"—seems like an opinion. I hope it's reffed further down.
It is, it's a quote from Cockroft.
  • "Continued experiments on ZETA showed that the original temperature measurements were misleading, and the bulk temperature was too low for fusion reactions to explain the number of neutrons being seen."—Is "Further experiments" better? To exclude the second clause from the "showed", perhaps "... misleading; the ...".
Indeed.
  • "ended by 1961"—you mean "ended in 1961"?
No, it is not directly recorded in any of the references when such work ended, but there is no further reference to new machines after that date. So it might have ended anytime between 1958 and 1961, but definitely by 61. That said, ZETA itself continued on to 1968, so I'm not sure what that means.
  • "and was later".
Fixed.

And after the lead, flicking through at random:

  • "Arthur Eddington's 1920 suggestion that the sun was fusion powered"—It's stopped being that since? Why not use present tense?
Because the suggestion is in the past.
  • "The news was too good to keep bottled up and tantalizing leaks started as early as September." Two different propositions. Comma?
Grammarly says no, but I'm not sure what the rule is in this case.
Grammarly??? Please no. I do not want to read: "The news was too good to keep bottled up and tantalizing", and then have to disambiguate in reverse. Tell that to Grammarly. Tony (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October, Thonemann, Cockcroft and William P. Thompson hinted that interesting results would be following, and in November a UKAEA spokesman noted "The indications are that fusion has been achieved".[55] Based on these hints, the Financial Times dedicated an entire two-column article to the issue."—First, Thompson hinted, the spokesman noted, but this becomes "hints". Why not "based on this"? "To the issue" in that context grates against a newspaper issue (daily).
Fixed.

Needs a detailed run-through on the surface. 45-minute job by a third party. Tony (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Can I just check if the nominator plans to respond to Tony1's points here? I'm a little concerned that this has been open for over two months, but seems to have stalled. It would be unusual, but not unheard of, to archive with two supports, but I think it might help matters along if these concerns were taken care of, and if we asked someone to take another look. Maybe John would oblige as he is very good at the kind of run through that Tony thinks is necessary. In any case, I think if we are still in the two support situation at the end of the month, we might have to archive this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

edit

Thanks for the ping, Sarastro1. I have been working through this; I confirm that it was not ready for promotion as I found a couple of things already. --John (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First one, then the other. I've clarified.
So the first was in kelvin, and the others in Fahrenheit? Kelvin would be preferred on a science article. I wonder how we should handle this. --John (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "first one then the other" is a little physics joke. When something is being heated up (or cooled), any number will be met on one scale and then the other. All temperatures in the article are in K.
Thanks for clarifying, and for the joke. --John (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: When we say the older systems "suddenly looked old fashion" do we mean "old-fashioned"? I am unable to inspect p70 of the Bromberg source to check myself. --John (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She's american, no dash. Great book BTW, she gets the political side that I would generally gloss over. Only really has the US program in it, sadly, but that was what she was paid for.
If the book writes "old fashion", that would be wrong in either version of English. This article is written in British English. --John (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting I change this?
I suggest "old-fashioned" would be better, depending how the source describes it. --John (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is quoted directly.
I see. Well, I don't think we can run with it the way it is at the moment. --John (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still not sure I understand your position. Are you stating that we should not include a direct quote because the original author used different hypenation? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less concerned with the hyphenation than with the grammar error. --John (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Yikes, I was so focused on the hyphen I didn't even notice the other issue. Interestingly, the print version I have, which is the 2nd edition, does not use that exact term, so I've simply copied the new one out of that text instead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maury, how about "suddenly looked [old-fashioned]"? The square brackets would allow for a slight tweaking of the original words without being a misquote, and at the same time would correct the non-standard grammar. Or you could paraphrase and not use a direct quote here. Or (possibly least elegant option) use sic. I agree with John that even if it is a direct quote, it should still flow as correct grammar within the surrounding prose. Moisejp (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this FAC has stalled. As I said above, I don't like to archive with two supports, but that third support is proving elusive and both Tony1 and John have picked up a few issues. It's worth pointing out that Tony1 does not do full reviews, but looks for problems in one or two sections; given that he found little issues, there may be others elsewhere. Also, given that the pace has slowed to a crawl, I think the best option would be to archive this now. It can be renominated after the usual two week cooling-off period, and I'm sure that John would work with the nominator away from FAC in that time. When it is renominated, it is perfectly acceptable to contact the two supporters to inform them (as long as a neutral note is left), and hopefully that should mean that things move much faster second time around. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/ZETA_(fusion_reactor)/archive1&oldid=1088821118"