Talk:Metallurgical Laboratory/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 13:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I propose taking on this review. At a preliminary glance, the article looks comprehensive and well-written. I will study it in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

First reading

 * I particularly liked the "Origins" section which I thought very helpful.
 * "Compton discussed how plutonium might be produced in a nuclear reactor with Eugene Wigner from Princeton University, and how plutonium produced in a reactor might be chemically separated from uranium with Robert Serber." - This sentence is a bit confusing, perhaps it could be rearranged so that the people are mentioned earlier.
 * "It fell to Compton to decide which of the different types of reactor designs that the scientists should pursue, even though a successful reactor had not yet been built." - This is confusing too.
 * "... where war work had not yet taken them away," - This could be expressed better.
 * What did the "United States Army Corps of Engineers" take over?
 * Explain who "Allison" is the first time he is mentioned in the main text, ie wikilink in lead and main text.
 * "Extensive work was subsequently carried out on the ventilation system allow the laboratory to work with plutonium." - Missing word.
 * " A site containing an ice house and stables that was owned by the University in Chicago were made available in April 1943." - Should be "was" rather than "were".
 * "Construction of facilities including and service buildings and an access road was commenced in September 1942" - Sentence needs attention.
 * "Fermi designed a new pile, "pile" of uranium and graphite" - Do we need both these piles?
 * As you have section headings "Chicago Pile-1" and "Chicago Pile-3", it would seem logical to have "Chicago Pile-2".
 * "... in which the moderator and fuel arranged in a geometric configuration called a "lattice"." - Missing word.
 * On the whole the article is excellent at explaining concepts that might be unfamiliar to the reader, so what is the "canning process"?
 * "Under bombardment by neutrons, the graphite in the moderator will be knocked out of its crystalline structure." - I would have thought the present tense could be used here.
 * You could add an explanation of what the "Bismuth phosphate process" is for.
 * "By year's end," - two years were mentioned in the previous sentence.
 * "... taking with him taking a substantial chunk of the Metallurgical Laboratory's staff" - Needs attention.
 * Looking back now at the lead, it seems to be rather short in comparison with the whole article. It includes little on personnel or health and safety for example.
 * That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have made all the suggested changes here. Any further suggestions about expanding the lead are welcome. I find leads particularly hard to write. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, leads are difficult, but I am satisfied with your improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout. Action has been taken on the points I raised during the review.
 * The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
 * The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
 * The article is neutral.
 * The article is stable.
 * The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.


 * Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)