Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernest Lawrence/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2015.

Ernest Lawrence

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Ernest Lawrence, one of the more famous and controversial scientists of the 20th century. He is still well-known today because the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory are named after him. As is a chemical element. Indeed, he could write his name and address in elements: Lr Bk Cf Am. In an era when most top scientists studied in Europe, his education was entirely in America. He was known for his right-wing politics in a time when Academics, particularly at Berkeley, were noted for affiliation with left-wing causes, yet managed to be on good terms with them. He commanded high salaries and was never afraid of asking others to work for little or nothing. Above all, he was a strong believer in the principle of bigger being better, which he applied to everything from laboratory instruments to nuclear weapons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "at the same time. By this time, ... By this time": Too much.
 * Re-worded. Thanks for your help, as always. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some of the details in the infobox, for example his doctoral students, are not sourced in the text
 * Added something about them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in when you include publisher locations
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Use a consistent date format
 * Ran a script over it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's by the local historian at Oak Ridge. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments Generally seems to meet the standard. Detailed points: Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Though it seems to be the style we often use for scientists, the list of honours in the infobox seems much too long. That rank of the Legion d'Honneur had over 17,000 holders in 2010.
 * True, but how many are mad scientists? Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding the science well-explained for a very lay reader.
 * Things like " Molly's sister Elsie married Edwin McMillan in 1941." don't help - it turns out if you follow the link he got the Nobel too, but this is not explained.
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Having got married at 31, by the time his 6th child was born I suspect we are out of "early life", no? He died at 57; I suspect Susan was still at school.
 * Normally in articles on scientists, "Early life" covers everything up to getting their PhD done. Split the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Section "The developments of the cyclotron" - why plural?
 * Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you ever going to explain what a cyclotron is/does?
 * Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "...which he assigned to the Research Corporation." They need explaining
 * Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "In February 1936, Harvard University's president, James B. Conant, made attractive offers to Lawrence and Oppenheimer.[36] In response, the Radiation Laboratory became an official department of the University of California on July 1, 1936..." I see what's going on, but "attractive offers" and "in response" read rather clumsily.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At Cockroft's invitation, Lawrence was invited to the 1933 Solvay Conference, to give a presentation on the cyclotron.[40] Lawrence ran into withering skepticism from James Chadwick, who suggested that what Lawrence's team was observing was contamination of their apparatus" Explanatory phrases needed for italicised things.
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "On his recommendation that the director of the Manhattan Project, Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., appointed Oppenheimer as head of the Los Alamos Laboratory." ?? cut "that"?
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Lawrence proposed to use accelerators instead of nuclear reactors to produce the neutrons needed to create the tritium the bomb required, as well as plutonium, which was more difficult." The plutonium was more difficult? Just anyway, or in accelerators? And so on. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a bit. It is quite straightforward to make plutonium in reactors, but there is the issue of Wigner's disease. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Post-war career and legacy" I'd split to "Post-war career" and "Death and legacy" If you can split the earlier big sections that would be good too.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "He was known for his right-wing politics" you say above, but nothing about that, beyond promoting having big bombs. Equally nothing on why he was "one of the more famous and controversial scientists of the 20th century."
 * Hmm. Overall, a very dry narrative account, with not enough background for the non-expert, either on scientific detail or personalities. The Alvarez quote makes a nice change - more colour like that would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! I will address the issues raised over the next few days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments
 * Lawrence does not sound to me like a Norwegian name. Is it known whether it had been 'Americanised'?
 * Yes. His grandfather was Ole Hundale Lavrens. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps mention that his younger brother was also a physicist.
 * His brother was a physician. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk)
 * "Instead of using it to travel to Europe, he remained at Yale University with Swann as a researcher" This assumes that the reader knows that NRC fellowships are generally used for travel to Europe, but the article on the NRC does not even mention fellowships. I would leave out ref to Europe.
 * All the top scientists travelled to Europe at that time. In fact, earning a science degree involved learning German. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "By reducing the emission time by switching the light source on and off rapidly, the spectrum of energy emitted became broader," Awkward repetition of "by" How about "Reducing the emission time, by switching the light source on and off rapidly, broadened the spectrum of energy emitted,"
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Lawrence received offers of assistant professorships from the University of Washington in Seattle and the University of California" When?
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "but because he had never been an instructor" No change needed, but is this what would be called in Britain a lecturer?
 * Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * " While sitting in the library one evening, Lawrence glanced over a journal article by Rolf Widerøe" When?
 * In 1929. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * " Lawrence replaced him with M. Stanley Livingston[23] and David H. Sloan, who he set to work on developing Widerøe's accelerator and Edlefsen's cyclotron respectively" This seems to say that Sloan worked on the cyclotron, but below you say his linear accelerator.
 * Ooops. Swapped the names around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * " and John Lawrence's for production of medical isotopes" I don't think you have mentioned that John was working with Ernest.
 * It is mentioned. I have expanded it into a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately, University of California's contract to run the Los Alamos laboratory was due to expire on July 1, 1948" I don't think you fully explain this laboratory. I take it that it was created as part of the Manhattan Project to create a nuclear bomb. It ran part of the process for enriching uranium, and it was run by the Univ of California, although you do not say so. Presumably also the AEC wanted Univ Cal to carry on running the laboratory. It would be helpful to spell these points out.
 * No, the Radiation Laboratory developed the enrichment process. The Los Alamos Laboratory developed the bombs themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Responsibility for the national laboratories passed to the newly created Atomic Energy Commission on January 1, 1947.[76] In 1947, Lawrence asked for $15 million for his projects, which included a new linear accelerator and a new gigaelectronvolt synchrotron which became known as the bevatron." You do not say whether the request was approved - also the second "1947" could be "In the same year"
 * Ooops. Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * " Lawrence proposed to use accelerators instead of nuclear reactors to produce the neutrons needed to create the tritium the bomb required, as well as plutonium, which was more difficult, as much higher energies would be required.[84] He first proposed the construction of Mark I, a prototype $7 million, 25 MeV linear accelerator, codenamed Materials Test Accelerator (MTA), mainly used to produce polonium for the nuclear weapon program." I lost you here. He proposed Mark I, presumably to make tritium and plutonium, but was a failure for its intended purpose and was instead used to make polonium?
 * You got it right. I have re-worded to make it clearer. The real problem the present-day reader has is imagining the government handing over very large sums of money for a project with such a poor prospect of success. But the 1950s were a different time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a very good article but I am not sure it is there yet as an FA. Going on what you say, he seems to have been a brilliant scientific inventor and organizer. The ANB article comments that before him science was carried on by individuals, and he was a pioneer of big science carried on by the military-industrial complex, a point you refer to but do not spell out. But was he a scientist of the first rank? How far was his hero status a product of the paranoia of the Cold War period? How is he seen today? The ANB article cites biographical sources "not uniformly flattering to Lawrence", two of which are not in your sources. I think the legacy section needs to cover these questions. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All the works referred to are here except Nuel Pharr Davis. I didn't use Jungk because it's very old, and my British copy has very different page numbers to the US edition, which caused problems on the Oppenheimer article. What Kauffman really meant was that Childs's book is uniformly flattering to Lawrence. Herken and Heilbron are far more critical. Heilbron is really, really good but his history is unfinished. It only goes up to 1940. Added a bit to spell this out.  Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have come across 3 articles which you may/may not have seen/find useful. 1. Review of Greene, Eisenhower, Science Advice and the Nuclear Test-Ban Debate, which says that Lawrence was one of the advisers who persuaded Eisenhower not to pursue a test ban treaty in 1954. 2. Carson, comparison of Lawrence and Heisenberg. 3. Chu, Cyclotron and medicine. Email me if you want pdfs of any of these. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just the journal references would be enough. I can add a lot more about the cyclotron and medical research, but it is off-topic because Lawrence didn't do any of it himself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a bit more about his position on the nuclear test ban. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope these are right. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- sorry but I think that almost six weeks into the review we should be making greater progress towards consensus to promote, so will archive it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.