Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Oliphant/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC).

Mark Oliphant

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Mark Oliphant, an Australian scientist who played a key role in the development of radar and nuclear weapons during World War II. He is credited with the discovery or co-discovery of deuterium, tritium, helium-3 and nuclear fusion. Regrettably, he is not as well known as he should be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN1: I know this is the format that NLA gives, but it's redundant
 * FN2, 37: title should use endash
 * Find-A-Grave is not a reliable source
 * FN74: ABC is not a work, it's a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by the second point. They seem to already use the endash. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They're both displaying as hyphens for me (the latter is now FN36) - I would fix myself but they're both cite DOI so I'm not sure how to get at the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, they probably shouldn't be using cite DOI, given the message at the top of its documentation page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A gnome went around creating cite DOI templates at one point. I wasn't happy, because they caused formatting problems, particularly with the author links. Replaced both with cite journal. And corrected the endashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
Support. All my comments below have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is in great shape; I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "heading a group at the University of Birmingham that included John Randall and Harry Boot, who created a radical new design": shouldn't that be "which", not "who", since it refers to a group? Or perhaps rephrase.
 * I was thinking that the sentence is too long, and split it in twain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest giving the date of the MAUD Committee report in the lead.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "and as such opposed to eating meat": I think this would be more natural as either "and as such were opposed to eating meat" or "and as such opposed eating meat".
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The two paper titles listed in "Early life" differ in their capitalization conventions. I assume you're following the sources here, but I think it would be harmless to regularize them (and any later paper titles) to whichever version is standard on WP.
 * Regularised to title case. Caused by different styles among journals. MOS:CT is the standard in the MOS, which is just monstrous. And calls for title case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like you regularized it in the citations but not the body of the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Missed one. Done now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On my screen the "coincidental" quote is not apparently indented because the image of the Cavendish Laboratory is to the left. How about moving Rutherford's lab image to the left, the Cavendish to the right, and the Poynting building to the left?
 * Swapped the images around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "He managed to not only convince the Americans that an atomic bomb was feasible, but inspired Lawrence to": I think "not only" requires an "also" later in the sentence.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The establishment of a world-class nuclear physics research capacity in Australia was intimately linked with the government's plans to develop nuclear weapons. Oliphant was a staunch advocate of such research, declaring that Britain needed to develop its own nuclear weapons": can you clarify how a research institute in Australia supported plans for Britain's development of nuclear weapons? Were the two countries so closely linked constitutionally at that time that research for one was automatically to the advantage of the other?
 * To answer the last question first: no, they were not so closely linked constitutionally at that time, and were drifting ever further apart. While Britain postured that development of its own nuclear weapons was part of retaining its status as a Great Power, there was fear that the United States would show up late for the next war, as it had in 1914 and 1939. For Australia, the fear was of a repeat of the Pacific War, when an Asian power came bearing down on Australia and its South East Asian neighbours. So the two thought they were on the same page, but weren't. But they did need each other. The United States had cut off Britain's access to uranium from Africa and Canada, but Australia could supply its needs. It could also provide a nuclear test range. Australia hoped that Britain would supply it with the nuclear weapons that were developed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That clarifies it for me, but I think some indication of this should be in the article -- I've lived in both countries, and I didn't follow this, so I think most readers won't. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "he selected one of the capital's most striking designs, and oversaw its construction": it doesn't become one of the capital's most striking designs until completed, so perhaps "he made the final selection, and oversaw the construction of the capital's most striking designs"?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure we need two separate pictures of the same monument at the end of the article.
 * FYI, the only thing I'm waiting on to support is a clarification in the article of the relationship between the UK's and Asutralia's nuclear policy -- as it's currently phrased I think it's confusing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the paragraph. Hope it is clearer now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That does it for me. I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "today": There's a potential fight here over WP:DATED. Not my area of expertise.
 * They are all generated with the template, so will never become out of date, but to avoid giving the impression that they will, I tweaked the template so they now all say "equivalent to AUD$75,000 in 2015" (or whatever the sum is). The year is generated by the inflation template, and will always be the current year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's an improvement ... but I consider it above my pay grade to make that call. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm agreed on Mike's remaining points.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Gaff (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Permissions on the three gallery shots at the bottom of page: "My camera, my software and I created this work entirely by ourselves.)" This is an odd claim to have on photos of a sculpture and some plaques. That's a trivial concern. However, are these problematic images in therms of freedom of panorama?
 * Yes, we have Freedom of Panorama in Australia. Any 3-D public artwork may be photographed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the images released by the museum as cc by sa 2.0 are presumably owned by the museum, but not clear who actually took them.
 * A museum employee as part of their duties, so the Science Museum asserts copyright. It was released to us under the GLAM program. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * otherwise looks good to me.

Comments from Curly Turkey

 * Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of the following comments:
 * None necessary, but I tweaked the grammar at a couple of points. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hairsplitting, and I won't make an issue of it, but is "Atheist" a religion? (In the infobox)
 * "There is no God, and Dirac is His prophet." I think what happened was that someone removed the religion card from the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article makes heavy use of inflation adjustments for salaries, etc. As the template's documentation points out, its use should be restricted—money "means" different things at different times and in different situations, and a simple conversion based on the CPI can give a distorted sense of what these numbers "meant" in their times (for example, calculations based on CPI and on PPP can give widely different results).
 * It works okay for everyday items. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salaries and government outlays are not everyday items. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * he worked on it with his friend Ernest Lawrence at the Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California, on electromagnetic isotope separation: I assumed "it" meant the bomb, but then we have "on electromagnetic isotope separation"—I don't understand what this means
 * Changed "on electromagnetic isotope separation" to "developing electromagnetic isotope separation". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * She was called by her second name, Edith.: I'm not sure this is relevant, as she's never mentioned again, and an entire sentence on what she was called puts perhaps undue weight on what she was called.
 * Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and Laurence Oliphant, the British traveller and mystic: any relation?
 * Possibly a distant one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the killing of pigs on a farm: if this means their slaughter, perhaps that would be a more appropriate term (as opposed to joykilling, say)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oliphant later recalled that Burdon "taught me the extraordinary exhilaration: this reads as "Oliphant taught me"—either the quote should be introduced explicitly as a quote, or "[him]" should be interpolated for "me".
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * per annum: again, I won't make an issue of it, but is there any reason to prefer "annum" to "year"?
 * It sounds very awkward, probably because "per" is Latin, so "per year' would be mixing the two languages. Everyone says "per annum". I think teacher would strike out "year" and write "annum" in red. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * research into nuclear physics: not "research in"?
 * "in nuclear physics" sounds awkward. It would also mean two "in"s in close proximity, which would incline me to eliminate one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He was the first to conceive of the proton synchrotron: it might be a good idea to explain briefly what this is
 * Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "spend whatever was necessary to bring nuclear physics to Birmingham in a big way": quotes require attribution; is there some reason this shouldn't be paraphrased?
 * The quote is sourced. paraphrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Moot now that it's paraphrased, but "requires attribution" means you have to say whose quote it is in the te, and not merely source it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've stopped at "Manhattan Project"—if I forget to return, ping me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * theoretical issues involved in an atomic bomb: in developing an atomic bomb? This could be read as theoretical issues in an actual atomic bomb.
 * I don't follow you. "theoretical issues involved in developing an atomic bomb" would not be correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * energy of tons of dynamite: given the colloquial use of "tons of", it might be better to reword to something like "several tons of". And shouldn't this be "tonnes" in AusEng?
 * Yes (Style Guide 11.9); but I'm summarising the Frisch–Peierls memorandum. (Style Guide 11.28) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "United States" pops up a lot, often in quick succession—it doesn't appear that you use "US" or "U.S." at all. Is there a reason for that?
 * In AusEng, it is "US" (Style Guide 7.5) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like Tony1 dealt with this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * as it was not government policy at the time to confer honours on civilians: as opposed to "was government policy ... not to confer honours"? The former sounds like they merely neglect to.
 * If you think it reads better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was academic suicide: Why?
 * Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The establishment of a world-class nuclear physics research capacity: is "a capacity" the right term here?
 * Changed to "capability" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to specify that the McCarran Act was an American act, and that the State Department was American—it could be read as Australia restricting Oliphant's travel
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * one of the capital's most striking designs: "the capital" would be Canberra?
 * Correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  The Age newspaper reported: this sounds strange to me—would you be opposed to rewording it to something like "The newspaper The Age"?
 * Deleted "newspaper" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rosa, suffer before her death in 1987: do we know what caused her to suffer?
 * No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * his son Michael having died in 1971: outliving a son is usually a pretty big deal. Do we know the story?
 * Cancer. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Electromagnetic separation was a technique Oliphant had pioneered back in 1934.: should this not be mentioned when it happened chronologically, then? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, but many editors dislike chronological order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "that was the prevailing attitude of almost the entire white population of Australia until well after World War II": won't make an issue of it, but you might want to reconsider having removed the non-breaking space in "World War II" here.  It's particularly ugly for the "II" to break at the end of a paragraph.
 * Done, but nbsps cause a lot of problems. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Curly, how are things looking now from your perspective? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with the inflation templates, and I strongly recommend Hawkeye take a look into why they're an issue. I don't think it's a big enough issue, though, so I'll give this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.