Talk:Frederick Reines/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You will have the review completed quickly as in the very first look, it looks perfect. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORD my strength 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status – Review Criteria   		A good article is—  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

</ol>

Review

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

 * Checklinks show a very slight requirement of cleanup like domain path clearance, which would be worth a while for the article's tidiness. Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph of death section can be updated with few more inline cites for a better stability. Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed. I cannot find evidence that the bridge (which is still under construction as the whole project is running years behind) has been or will be named after him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Early life section needs a rewrite for paraphrasing. Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Two block quotes inflate the rating. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ...was an American physicist who was awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Physics for his co-detection of the neutrino with Clyde Cowan in the neutrino experiment. He may be the only scientist in... will be a better opening. Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph of lead needs more wikilinks or piping. It looks almost bare. Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Linked Hanford and Savannah sites. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Result
The article passed the GA review to gain a Good Article Status. The article is finely cited with a good coverage and meet all other GA criteria. Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)