Talk:James Franck/GA1

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

Reviewer: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs) 12:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Beginning review. Will add comments over the next several days. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Earwig's Copyvio Detector gave false positive matches of 71.6%, 71.3%, and 62.1% against various internet sites. Nothing to worry about, the matches are all isolated phrases or, in certain cases, direct quotes properly identified as such. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent in its use of British versus American spelling. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC) ::* Talk page needs a notification that British spelling is used, but I'm in a rush to get to work and can't do it myself. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Switched to British spelling.. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added the template Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Eva von Bahr, Peter Pringsheim, Werner Kroebel all appear to be sufficiently notable that redlinking is proper. However, I find it difficult to justify the use of redlinks for Paul Knipping, Walter Lochte-Holtgreven, or Physikalische Verein in the English-language Wikipedia. Knipping and Lochte-Holtgreven worked with Franck but do not seem otherwise to have had especially noteworthy careers, and the Physikalische Verein does not even have an entry in the German Wikipedia. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DAB issue: Henry Wallace Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Repaired. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The following external link does not, in my opinion, provide sufficient added value as to meet the criteria presented in the External links guidelines page. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A few awkward sentences: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "They showed that the wavelength of this ultraviolet light corresponded exactly to the 4.9 eV of energy that the flying electron had lost; for visible light, different wavelengths correspond to different colours." (What is the purpose of the clause after the semicolon?)
 * ✅ None that I can see. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 'In his Nobel lecture, Franck admitted that it was "completely incomprehensible that we had failed to recognise the fundamental significance of Bohr’s theory, so much so, that we never even mentioned it once in the relevant paper."' (Confusing. Which "relevant paper"? They must be referring to their 1914 paper, since the 1918 paper fully acknowledged Bohr.)
 * ✅ Yes. Moved it up higher so this is clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "In supervising doctoral students, Franck had to ensure that their thesis topics were well-defined, that they would teach the candidate how to conduct research, and while staying within the limits of their ability, their equipment and their budget, that they would contribute original science." (Seems a bit run-on.)
 * ✅ Changed to: "In supervising doctoral candidates, Franck had to ensure that thesis topics were well-defined, and would teach the candidate how to conduct original research, while still staying within the limits of the candidate's ability, the laboratory's equipment and the institute's budget." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)