Talk:Lorna Arnold/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 22:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "1957 Windscale fire, which she would later write a book about" - should be "1957 Windscale fire, about which she would later write a book".
 * ✅ Uh, sure.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "In 1967, she joined Margaret Gowing working on the history of the British nuclear weapons programmes" - joined her on what? A project?
 * ✅ "writing the history of the British nuclear weapons programmes."  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "She was the first in that school to win a scholarship to university" - which school? The previous sentence is about the family moving, so did she move schools? This should be clearer.
 * ✅ They didn't move far. Added that she stayed at the same school.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "a small college for the training of women graduates as teacher," - I think an s is missing, but this clause can be deleted as redundant anyway.
 * ✅ Re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Although adjacent to Fenner's, the University of Cambridge's cricket ground, it was not at the time a college of the University;[11] this would not be achieved until 2007" - this is awkward phrasing. Perhaps "Although the college is adjacent to Fenner's, the University of Cambridge's cricket ground, it was not at the time a college of the University,[11] and was not accepted as one until 2007"
 * ✅ Re-worded. Some sources got muddled on this point, so I clarified the point about whether she was a Cambridge graduate or not.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Armed with her teaching certificate," - odd use of the word "armed" here. "Having achieved" makes more sense.
 * ✅ Re-worded. The point is that you needed a teaching certificate to get a job as a teacher. In those days these were mostly offered by teaching colleges.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Eventually, the British government found even the half the cost of Bizonia as being too much to bear, resulting in further negotiations" - "Eventually, the British government found even the half the cost of Bizonia too great, resulting in further negotiations" sounds better.
 * ✅ Done.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "To her surprise, the UKAEA Council decided to press on with the project, asking Arnold to stay on although she was now over seventy years old. In 1993, she was joined by Katherine Pyne, an aircraft engineer working on a history degree, who became her research assistant for two years. However, the end was in sight. The UKAEA no longer had responsibility for nuclear weapons, and management was not interested in it. With funds for the project almost exhausted, the UKAEA Council decided that Arnold should retire in 1996. Yet the project did not die. Arnold loaded her notes into her car and took them home. Sympathetic friends at the Ministry of Defence found some money to cover her expenses, and she doggedly continued to work on it at home. Britain and the H-Bomb finally appeared in 2001" - this is written in too-colloquial a style. It should be condensed and made less dramatic/personal.
 * ✅ Re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "which the BCC cancelled as "too high brow"" - I presume this should be BBC? Also, who says this? If its Arnold herself then that isn't neutral and it should be made clear that this is her opinion.
 * ✅ Typo. Corrected. Re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "in which she described her remarkable life from living on a rural farm" - remove remarkable as an opinion (she was, but it can't be in the article like this)
 * ✅ deleted "remarkable".  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * "In late 1952, the National Trust moved the collection of keyboard instruments to Fenton House" - This is completely without context. What was her role with the National Trust?
 * ✅ None. Tried to make this clearer by adding a bit more about it. There's a whole book on the subect, if you're interested. Waitzman, Mimi. The Benton Fletcher Collection at Fenton House, Early Keyboard Instruments', The National Trust 2003. ISBN 0-7078-0353-5
 * "Arnold decided to produce a book. A Very Special Relationship: British Atomic Weapon Trials in Australia was not a success when it appeared in 1987, and was not available in Australia." - why not? Also, by what assessment was it not a success? Poor sales? Bad reviews? This needs to be clearer.
 * ✅ Clarified. Before the 1990s, access to books in Australia was restricted by copyright. Only books that were remaindered in the UK were shipped to Australia. So books were released months or years late, or (often) not at all. This was changed with the legalisation of parallel imports in 1991. Now publishers have 30 days to release the book, or individuals and book stores can import copies. So now our books are released at the same time as everyone one.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "She was introduced to Scilla Elworthy, one of the leaders of the Oxford Research Group, one of the UK's leading of advocates for alternatives to global conflict, in the 1980s by her friend, physicist Rudolf Peierls" - what is the significance of this meeting?
 * ✅ Added a bit.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * All points addressed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work, well done. A really nice article on an interesting person - really felt like I learned something with this article. Quick question, where should she go on the GA list? With the general historians? Or more explicitly military? --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added her as a historian, but feel free to move her elsewhere if you'd prefer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is fine.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)