Talk:Charles Critchfield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Corvus coronoides (talk · contribs) 15:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review in progress. Corvus coronoides _talk 15:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article on hold

Overall looks good. I'm placing the article on hold for 7 days (until 9 August 2013) pending resolution of the following issues:

in the Postwar section, "After the war, Critchfield returned to George Washington University, but left to join Wigner at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory" - when did he leave? Immediately? a few months later? a few years later?
My source says: "After the war Critchfield returned briefly to George Washington University, then left to help Wigner establish Queen's College for Nuclear Knowledge at Oak Ridge." So we know he left Los Alamos in 1946, and left Oak Ridge in 1947. It doesn't give him much time, but we don't know the exact date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I would suggest rephrasing to say "left soon after" or "later left" or else "returned briefly" - I think it helps the flow a little, but up to you. Corvus coronoides _talk 22:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in the Later life section, "By the end of the month, because of questions raised in Congress by California representative Chester E. Holifield, Critchfield withdrew his name from consideration." - what kinds of questions? a little clarification here would improve coverage.
- Y This took a bit of digging, but I came up with this: "McElroy hoped that Critchfield would be able to fix the nation's trouble missile program, but Critchfield was reluctant to serve at the director's $19,000 salary. McElroy then offered to let Critchfield serve without pay, with the government paying only his expenses of $15 per day, while allowing Critchfield to continue to draw his Convair salary of around $40,000. Critchfield accepted this offer, but ran into a storm of political and media criticism over the conflict of interest involved in heading an agency that did $4 million worth of business with Convair each year. Critchfield then withdrew his name from consideration." This was kind of interesting actually. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in the Later life section, "At Los Alamos, he became the mentor of a new generation of young scientists." - this sentence seems editorial. It could be deleted, or clarified by listing (and referencing) some of the young scientists in question.
- Y deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if there are any questions/comments/concerns. Best, Corvus coronoides _talk 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Nice work.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Well-written and nice lead.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Plentiful cites.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Coverage sufficient.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No neutrality issues here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images good and public domain.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Good work on the article and digging up sources on the things I mentioned in the hold. Pass. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]