Talk:Nuclear entombment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OzOsseus, Bens23, Zoeryhuang, Chengji Zhu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bigfoot8406. Peer reviewers: Alexwithanea, TBernardis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

This article coudl better be merge in the Nuclear decommissioning page. I myself mistook between safe enclosure and entombment, and listing all options in one page makes the difference clearer. Also, there is not a whole lot to say about this topic; the word entombment basically said it all. -- Eiland (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it has been many years, I still agree with this proposal. All my copy-editing effort here has led me to believe this article is overly wordy and lacking in unique content. It should be cut down and the remains merged. Anon423 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl

Chernobyl is not entombed - the "sarcophagus" is not a sealed concrete structure, it's just an assembly of thick steel plates and there are large holes in it. --Tweenk (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New entombment device is a sealed concrete and steel barrier and will be completed in 2017 Bigfoot8406 (talk) 4:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Dodwaard is not Entombed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.207.206 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Improvement

We intend to add the necessary citations that are currently missing from the article, as well as expand upon any information we find to be lacking. 23:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)23:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing issues and intent to clean up

In my opinion, the Preparation section and much of the page as a whole rambles rather incoherently, reiterating obvious or irrelevant details. Some parts don't seem supported by their citations, such as the mention of "Dynamite pack" (inserted [1] by User:OzOsseus), which seemed to me glaringly odd. I usually concern myself with copy-editing, mostly for style and grammar, which I will undertake here, but I'll also try to verify sources and rewrite the offending sections. This promises to be quite a bit of work, so I'd appreciate any help. Be bold, and feel free to make drastic deletions. I think this article needs serious focusing. --Anon423 (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the source linked after "Dynamite pack" indicates that explosives could be used to drop a contaminated pressure vessel into a pit and then bury it via controlled cave-in, but as a patent it could be purely speculative. It provides no information about whether this truly is common procedure. I'm going to remove that bit.--Anon423 (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up

As above, The Preparation section (particularly the second paragraph) still seems to aimlessly ramble. They talk of a robot, but I cannot for the life of me understand anything else. I believe it to be a poor paraphrase from the source material. One example;

"The robot was made by WWER-440-type-NNR and is mostly in central and Eastern of Europe, Russia."

The robot was made for WWER-440-type-NNR reactors, not by them. These reactors are the most common type used in Central and Eastern Europe and in Russia.

Further tidy and deletion is still sorely needed for this article Thanks. 210.56.88.136 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]