Talk:Project Camel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk • contribs) 10:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: one dab link :
 * Luis Alvarez
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action req'd).
 * Alt text: Images all lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links (no action req'd).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "Project Camel was the codename given during World War II to work performed by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in support of the Manhattan Project...", consider instead simplifying it as: "Project Camel was the codename given to work performed by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in support of the Manhattan Project during World War II."
 * ✅ That does sound better. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the comma req'd here b/n August and the year: " starting in August, 1943..."? You don't seem to present dates like this anywhere else.
 * ✅ stray comma. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The prose here is a little repetitive: "Lauritsen learned from Luis Alvarez that the Los Alamos Laboratory had encountered problems with the supply of exploding bridgewire detonators. Lauritsen found..." Specifically two sentences starting the same way. Perhaps reword one?
 * ✅ Re-worded the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there might be missing word here: "...The temporary nature of accommodation was no longer acceptable after the war...", consider instead: "...The temporary nature of the accommodation was no longer acceptable after the war..."
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
 * Level of coverage seems appropriate.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues here.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Images are all PD and seem appropriate to the article.
 * Not sure the wording is quite right here: "Aerial view of the Naval Air Station China Lake. A Grumman F7F Tigercat flies over Armitage Field." Specifically is the "the" out of place? Consider instead: "Aerial view of Naval Air Station China Lake. A Grumman F7F Tigercat flies over Armitage Field." (minor nitpick)
 * ✅ Re-worded per suggestion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Just a few minor points / suggestions above. Otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Those changes look fine. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)