Talk:Robert Brode/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 22 February 2015 (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 and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article.

The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Lead is too short. try and give us a few more sentences on his education, later work, 1950s pacifism etc.
 * Expanded the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk)
 * "Oxford university" should be capitalised. Incidentally, given the way Oxford alumni are categorised, it is valuable to note which college he was enrolled in - this is information is available, please include it.
 * This took some finding. It was Oriel College, Oxford. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * "University of London" is an administrative organisation, not a university. Usually when its used like this University College London is meant, although Blacklett was at Birkbeck - can you confirm where he was?
 * It was Birkbeck. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Brode became a professor emeritus in 1967" professor emeritus where? Berkely I assume, but say so.
 * Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * Just a thought rather than a suggestion, but shouldn't this be listed as a science article rather than a military one? Doesn't affect the review at all, but could go either way?
 * Could go either way. I don't quite recall, but I think it was because his achievements as a physicist were overshadowed by those with the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Great work - pass!