Talk:George T. Reynolds/GA1

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 10:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Commentary
Firstly, thanks for contributing in major part to this article on Wikipedia. This article contains a history about an interesting historical figure. In particular, I think the lede does a good job of summarising the article and his notability. I do not however believe the article meets the GA criteria at the current time, as it is not broad enough. I'm happy to wait for improvements and continue the review in a reasonable timespan. LT910001 (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Some questions that were raised relating to broadness when reading included:
 * What was his upbringing and/or early education like? (not expecting an essay, but there is a gap between his birth and graduation)
 * He attended Franklin Junior High School and New Brunswick High School. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Was there a particular reason he didn't enlist in the Manhatton Project?
 * "An avid surf fisherman and sailor, he aspired to join the United States Navy" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean, he had a degree in physics and a PhD, and was directly offered a job. He may have aspired to join the Navy, but was there a particular reason he turned down this offer? This article is certainly broad enough to meet GA status, so this comment will not hold up the promotion. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Who did he marry?
 * Virginia Rendell. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding this extra information. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What was his work ethic, beliefs and influences?
 * No idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At what date did he enter the navy?
 * In 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did he make any significant contributions to the Los Alamos Manhattan Project? (papers, theory-wise)
 * He helped design the implosion lenses,
 * Your added descriptions of these projects goes some way to resolving this question. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What role did he play in Project Alberta?
 * He worked with the X-Unit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did his interest in cosmic rays eventuate in any scientific advances?
 * The development of liquid scintillators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Center for Environmental Studies and his studies of bioluminescence, did he, or under his stewardship, any advances or research occur?
 * I think it was later used to genetically engineer mice that glow in the dark. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Some other specific comments include:
 * Some subjects that could do with a one or half-sentence introduction include: Project Alberta (what is it?), the Port Chicago disaster (what is it?), Ronald Rau from Caltech and Joseph Ballam (why are they noted here?),  organic crystal scintillators (a short description),
 * Added some sentences.
 * Thanks, that's much clearer. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As a primary reviewer of medical articles, it would be nice to know what type of cancer he passed away from. This isn't necessary to pass the GA review.
 * Unfortunately not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the name of his first son "G. Thomas"?
 * Yes. American form of the name. Thomas is his second but preferred name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All right. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I await your reply, and look forward to a discussion about improving this article in the future. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
Thank you for your (extremely!) prompt edits. I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done and I wish you well on your wiki-travels. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)