Talk:Effects of nuclear explosions/to do


 * Copyedit throughout


 * History section almost absent. Please expand it. Reduce the dependence on tables and prosify as far as possible.
 * Inline references needed where appropriate.
 * Balance the sections. Some are long, and some are short. Expand/summarise where necessary.
 * expand on the Survivability of an attack by people.
 * the history is just about the development of the nuclear weapon. The article would be most useful if it focused closely on the effects of a nuclear explosion; it would then serve its role very well as a subpage of the main nuclear weapon article.
 * The units are inconsistent, particularly for pressures.
 * Would adding the radii for damage to people due to shockwave pressure to the table be an improvement?
 * The Effects of a nuclear explosion section repeats itself & is unweildy, needs to be more concise & clearer. It should tie together with the following Direct & Indirect sections better e.g. the %ages don't include a figure for the EMP, presumably it's counted as part of the ionising radiation.
 * What is GR in the table? Presumably ground range.
 * Is a vortex ring not another way of saying mushroom cloud or at least to do with the shape of the mushroom cloud, these should be tied together.
 * At the top of the effects section a figure of 5% of the energy being ionising radiation is given then the ionising radiation section quotes 50%. Presumably one is measured at the nuclear device & the other is measured at an arbitrary distance once most of the ionising radiation has been converted into other effects.
 * more on the applications, which are mentioned in the lead but not again.
 * The list of possible uses of nuclear weapons needs to go lower here, or in a separate article.
 * Give a good copyedit to the History of nuclear explosions section. It is missing several serial commas and should be split into several sentences to avoid a run-on.
 * Severely needs inline citations. You also need to convert "bare" links to footnotes.
 * Use seealso, mainarticle and other article-linking templates.
 * It's missing several key details: for example, it talks about the equilibrium temperature of the surrounding areas, but does not tell you what that temperature is.
 * A layman does not know why you're calling X-rays "soft" - you need to explain more about that.
 * Several grammar issues. I've corrected most of them, but you need someone to go over and copyedit the entire article.
 * Weasel words. "Some eardrums would probably rupture..." do they rupture or not? Do you have a source for that?
 * it is a bit too technical, and needs some "dumbing down" to be brilliant prose.