Talk:Discovery of the neutron/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I'll do this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments
This is a thorough and well-cited article and I have few comments to make on it.


 * "electromagnetic radiation (light)": ahem.


 * In the same sentence as "(light)", a list introduced with ":" should have items separated by ";".


 * "Rutherford developed a mathematical model that accounted for the scattering." Is that the same model as the previous sentence? If so, make that plain (and move the citation down); if not, add a citation.


 * You might like to use a photo of Aston in the isotopes section and of Moseley in the Moseley's law section.


 * You might also use a photo of one of Aston's mass spectrometers. File:Early Mass Spectrometer (replica).jpg.


 * An ISBN or other ID should be provided for each book cited. The Story of Spin's is 978-0226807942, for instance. For Weak interactions and nuclear beta decay you can use the OCLC=954181689. Einstein: His Life and Universe is 978-0743264747 and its OCLC is 228652687. There are more.

Minor details

 * In the lead, the boldface title phrase must not include wikilinks.


 * Please link James Chadwick in the first image caption.


 * "a mass value 1.008." Wouldn't that be "a mass value of 1.008." ?


 * "hence precise measurements were required." That was and remains true of all physics experiments. What is intended here is "exceptionally precise".

Editor Replies
Thanks for giving the article a review! I've gone over your comments/suggestions and I believe I have responded to all of them, which they are minor enough. I think I got all the book ISPN's (Gamow's 1931 book has nothing, however - a book that was outdated and shown to be all wrong within a year!!!), but I might have missed one. I am reluctant to include photos of Aston and Moseley - mainly because it would elevate them to the level of Rutherford/Chadwick/Fermi, which they were not. Also because the article then seems to have too many people - an article about the people who discovered the neutron, rather than neutron itself. I've included the mass spectrometer photo however - I've tried to highlight how primitive this all was, hence amazing, which this image is consistent with. Bdushaw (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Summary
This article is easily up to the required standard and I'm glad to have been able to suggest some small improvements to a fascinating and human story. If you're thinking of going on to FAC, I'd advise you to take great care with polishing the references. Meanwhile, my congratulations on an excellent article, and I'd like to invite you to review one or two of the many interesting articles awaiting a GA reviewer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)