Talk:Hugh Bradner/GA1

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 17 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 have previously conducted an interview with this nominee. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:
 * Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
 * If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
 * Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these. LT910001 (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Commentary
I'll be very quick with this article as it's very close to GA status. There are some minor problems that I feel should be attended to before promotion:


 * This part in the lede: "Bradner's job at Berkeley required him to do a number of underwater dives. He had previously talked to United States Navy frogmen during World War II concerning the problems of staying in cold water for long periods of time, which causes the diver to lose large amounts of body heat quickly. He began experimenting with neoprene, a rubbery substance which he found "would trap the water between the body and the neoprene, and the water would heat up to body temperature and keep you warm."" could do a better job of summarising the article's content
 * What mnore needs to be added? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean would it be possible to rewrite this in summary style? LT910001 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Infobox lists University of California, San Diego twice; also, the article states he retired in 1980 but if this latter entry is retirement, he retired in 1979.
 * Merged the two entries. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I still see " University of California, San Diego (1961–2008)," but the article concurrent states he retired in 1980. LT910001 (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Could the phrase "showed that he clearly understood that the " be replaced for brevity by "proposed"?
 * No, this is his claim to have invented the wetsuit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. With the reordering these look much better. LT910001 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hang on, after all his experiments with neophrene, "Scripps scientist and engineer Willard Bascom advised Bradner to use neoprene for the suit material, which proved successful.[2]" Suggest move a paragraph up so that this flows in chronological order
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "the flight suit. (space) The "
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * “atAlamogordo ” -> space.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * suggest reword for clarity "and Jack O'Neill. Various claims " to "and Jack O'Neill, both of who various claims attribute the development of the wetsuit to."
 * No, that makes no sense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does not. LT910001 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggest reword "However, recent research into over 50 years of paperwork have proven that it was Bradner who created the original wetsuit, not his close competitors.[2]" to lessen the POV. Suggest "A recent analysis of historical documentation in the Times acknowledges Bradner as the creator of the original wetsuit."
 * Done. I wanted to avoid giving the impression that O'Neill or the Meistrell brothers had ever claimed to have invented the wetsuit, which they did not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. LT910001 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This change has not been completed. I would be happy if the words "have proven" were changed to "concluded" in order to lessen the POV. LT910001 (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Reword as sounds gramatically suspicious: "In 2005, the Los Angeles Times research " to "in 2005, research in the Los Angeles Times"
 * "Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
There are only two outstanding issues. When resolved, I will promote the article. LT910001 (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have promoted this article to GA status and made the required changes. Congratulations and well done, I would encourage you if interested to nominate this article for FA status if so desired. LT910001 (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)