User:El.Guapo6564/Westinghouse Atom Smasher/Audrey Metcalf Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

El.Guapo6564


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El.Guapo6564/Westinghouse_Atom_Smasher?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Westinghouse Atom Smasher

Evaluate the drafted changes
 Grammatical Errors, Etc.: 

(The original text is in italics and the parts bolded are the suggested changes.)

"This is similar to how M.I.T and Harvard also began their own organizations to study radiation and radio during the war."

This might be a personal preference but I think this sentence sounds a bit odd in the passage. Maybe change it to this instead. "Similarly, during this time, M.I.T. and Harvard also began their own organizations to study radiation and radio."

"In Westinghouse's Lamp Division in Bloomfield, NJ; they had begun production of uranium metal to be used in the first atomic pile."

Make sure the use of the semicolon after NJ is the correct grammatically.

"Before his time as the Director of Research in the Lamp Division, Harvey Rentschler developed a method in reducing uranium salts into metal to study its possible uses as a lamp filament."

I think changing this sentence slightly could make it read better. "Before his time as the Director of Research in the Lamp Division, Harvey Rentschler developed a method in reducing uranium salts into metal in order to study its possible uses as a lamp filament."

"He started with a crude, low level production line using galvanized was tubs as vessels before enlarging the project to further the production ."

Make sure the citation is after the period. I also think there is a typo here. I think you meant to say "galvanized washtubs" instead of "galvanized was tubs".

"E. U. Condon as well as some other atom smasher workers, were sent to work closely on the Manhattan district's efforts in separating uranium isotopes."

There needs to be a comma after Condon so it's like this. "E. U. Condon, as well as some other atom smasher workers, were sent to work closely on the Manhattan district's efforts in separating uranium isotopes."

"It was found, however, that the iron used for the atom smasher became brittle in low temperatures and the atom smasher may have taken damage during the war. This fact was found when several Liberty ships sailed through the freezing waters of Alaska, their exteriors began to crack and break up, causing the ships to sink due to the metal's failure."

I think there could be more added to this part to make it more clear to the readers. "It was found, however, that the iron used for the atom smasher became brittle in low temperatures and so the atom smasher may have taken damage during the cold parts of the war. This was discovered after several Liberty ships sailed through the freezing waters of Alaska and experienced failure. The same iron was used in their exteriors and it cracked, broke apart, and eventually sunk the ships."

"The Westinghouse Atom Smasher would not have came to be if it were not for the interest and development of physics in the early 1900s."

I think the verb tense in this sentence makes it difficult to read. "The Westinghouse Atom Smasher would not have been created if it wasn't for the interest and development of physics in the early 1900s."

"In the year 1932, there were some major advancements in the research of nuclear physics with John D. Cockroft and Ernest Walton producing the first nuclear disintegrations using artificially accelerated particles and James Chadwick discovering the neuron."

I think this sentence is a little long and could be broken into two sentences that way it doesn't seem like a run-on. Or putting the part about James Chadwick first in the sentence could make it still read okay without breaking the sentence into two separate ones.

 Overall Review: 

I wasn't sure how much of this was additions or which parts were apart of the original article, but after I looked at the original Wikipedia page, I can see you added a lot of information. I think there is a ton of great details and important things being added. You've stayed neutral and unbiased which is good. You also have a good amount of sources that you cited from. There were some grammatical errors and sentence structure that could be changed, but overall everything flowed well together. The small critiques were just suggestions and don't have to be changed that way as everyone has their own way of writing and prefers how different things sound.

Response to Peer Review
The peer review was very insightful. I appreciate the key left in the beginning of the review to more easily see the changes the peer would make. I am working on the history section of the draft, and I noted the grammatical changes the peer added to make the reading of the draft more clear. The other review mentioned that the first sentence sounded like an argument was made, and the next few sentences had some grammatical errors that caused the reading to be unclear. When additional information is added, these changes and grammatical insight will be in mind throughout the rest of the article's improvements.

Response to Peer Review (Isaiah Glenn)
In this peer review, it was shown that many of the issues that have been seen are grammatical and structural errors. This is good feedback as it will help us better when more information is added, and we can keep the possible changes in our minds. The other review had also mentioned the possible reference changes that may need to be made in the wartime efforts section that I've been working on as well. Overall, both reviews have been helpful in making it clearer some of the grammatical and structural errors that had been made and how to evaluate and make the necessary changes in the future.