Talk:John Cockcroft/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 18:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * "where sat the tripos exam in June 1924" - "where he sat" ✅
 * "This was followed by BEPO in 1948." - I wasn't sure from the way that this was written if Cockcroft had been involved in BEPO or not; would be worth making it clear.
 * "Harwell was involved in the design of reactors at Windscale, and the chemical separation plant there. " might be simpler as "Harwell was involved in the design of the reactors and the chemical separation plant at Windscale." ✅
 * Windscale gets linked twice in the lead Only linked once.
 * You fixed it in your edit today! :) see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Cockcroft&type=revision&diff=745650771&oldid=743256793. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "where he played Football and cricket." - capitalisation of football ✅
 * "Among the girls at the school was Eunice Elizabeth Crabtree." - Eunice hasn't been mentioned in either the lead or the main text at this point, so the fact doesn't make much sense to the reader. "Among the girls at the school was his future wife, Eunice Elizabeth Crabtree." ? ✅
 * "He joined the Officers' Training Corps there, but did not wish to become an officer. " - Joining the OTC would have presumably made him an officer cadet...? Would "commissioned officer" be more accurate? ✅ Linked.
 * "He was awarded his doctorate 6 September 1925." - "He was awarded his doctorate on 6 September 1925." ✅
 * " and Cockcroft supervised rewiring of the electricity." - I think this should be either " and Cockcroft supervised the rewiring of the electricity." or "and Cockcroft supervised rewiring the electricity." NB: thinking about it further, it might be better to say "electrics" rather than "electricity". ✅
 * "a 36-inch cyclotron" - needs a metric equivalent ✅
 * "At the outbreak of the Second World War, he took up the post" - as it starts a new section, you need to define who the "He" is here, e.g. "Cockcroft took up the post..." ✅
 * "Sir Henry Tizard showed Cockcroft 'Chain Home," - there's either a spare ' here, or a missing one. :) ✅
 * "the ring of coastal Early Warning radar stations" - is the capitalisation right here? ✅
 * "In post-war years, AERE under his direction took part in frontier fusion research" - this read oddly to me... "Under his direction, AERE engaged in frontier fusion research in the post war years, including taking forward the ZETA program."? ✅
 * "The Papers of Sir John Cockcroft " - is capitalisation of "papers" right here? ✅

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * Are you sure that Manhattan District (1947) has the right details in the bibliography? I ask because the OCLC link gives the publisher as the U.S. Department of Energy, and the author as United States Army Corps of Engineers (Manhattan District) (NB: but World Cat aren't always perfect!) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Manhattan District was part of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. It was succeeded by the United States Atomic Energy Commission in 1947, and the United States Department of Energy in 1977. General Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Engineer District, commissioned the Manhattan District History in 1944. Prepared by multiple authors under the general editorship of Gavin Hadden, a longtime civil employee of the Army Corps of Engineers, the classified history was "intended to describe, in simple terms, easily understood by the average reader, just what the Manhattan District did, and how, when, and where." The Office of Scientific and Technical Information, part of the Department of Energy, put the history up on its website a couple of years ago. Parts remain classified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * All looks good. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.


 * None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Appears neutral at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * File:Sir John Douglas Cockcroft.jpg is uploaded on the basis of life+70 for the photographer; no details of the photographer, their date of death etc. is given to justify this claim however.
 * And we can't argue with Commons. Switched to another picture. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Other images all look good. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * All fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Where is this at? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)