Talk:Emilio Segrè/GA1

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

Reviewer: Corvus coronoides (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Review in progress. Cheers,  Corvus coronoides  talk 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Article on hold
Things are looking good. I'm going to place this article on hold for 1 week (until August 9, 2013), pending resolution of the following points: Let me know if there are any questions/comments/concerns. Best,  Corvus coronoides  talk 14:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC) -- All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * in the early life section, "With the help of the director of the Institute of physics..." - could you please clarify whether this is an Institute of Physics or an institute of physics?
 * ✅ "Institute of Physics" Fixed capitalisaton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * in the Radiation Laboratory section, "...as he now feared that was in Europe was inevitable" - I think "war in Europe" is meant, but am not certain. Please check and fix.
 * ✅ Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * in the Radiation Laboratory section, "Segrè went looking for element 93 but did not find it, as he was looking for an element chemically akin to rhenium rather than a rare earth element, which is what he discovered" - what did he discover? Rhenium? a rare earth element?
 * ✅ Re-worded to "but did not find it, as he was looking for an element chemically akin to rhenium instead of a rare earth element, which is what element 93 turned out to be." It is probably hard for the reader to imagine this, as the gazing at a modern periodic table in chemistry class in high school would have made it seem obvious that Neptunium is a rare earth, but Segrè did not have a late 20th century chart. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Later Life section, "...and told Segrè to let him know when Pontecorvo wrote from Russia..." - I think what is implied here is that Alvarez's comment led Segre to move to UIUC, but it should be rephrased to be more encyclopedic.
 * ✅ I have expanded on this. I think Segrè was afraid of being blackballed as a communist sympathiser. But he does explicit say this,

GA Pass

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

Excellent work; informative article. Best,  Corvus coronoides  talk 21:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Very readable prose.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Cites more than adequate.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good, general coverage.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No issues here.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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 in public domain for one reason or another.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: