Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Oppenheimer/archive1

Robert Oppenheimer
This is a self-nom of sorts (I've worked on this article on and off for some time), but I think that as it currently stands it is a well-balanced article, with just the right amount of comprehensiveness, on the complicated "father of the atomic bomb." --Fastfission 00:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I haven't got time to read the whole article now but I notice that there's a section at the end titled "Further reading". These look like at least some of the works might actually be "References". As for the "External links" they should be listed as references if, as I suspect, they were used as such. -- Haukurth 00:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I re-labeled the "Further reading" section as "References" (and cleaned up the section on Oppenheimer's own publications) as I know that I at least used about half of those as actual references for what I know about Oppenheimer. I did refer to one of the external links at times but, for reasons I won't go into, it's a somewhat complicated situation in that respect. --Fastfission 04:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Have all previous problems - see here - been resolved? Jeronimo 07:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten it was previously nominated; I think they're all satisfied, more or less, except for something on his cultural meaning/legacy/etc. I wrote up an additional section as a preliminary version of this which covers most of the important bases, I think. If you think anything needs expanding, please feel free to let me know, most of it can be done effortlessly for me but I've tried not to go too overkill on things (I figure that if people want a blow-by-blow of his trial they will consult external references rather than an encyclopedia, for example). (And the reason why it talks about his illnesses, etc., is because those are why he first goes to New Mexico, which connects up with his other history). --Fastfission 20:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The article seems to have been expanded over that time - see history comparison. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The previous objections seem to have been satisfied, more or less, although some things are only briefly mentioned.  On the other hand, these are very complicated matters and one article isn't going to be able to do justice to them all.  Nicely written and just as good (if not better) than other Featured Articles.  --C S 08:46, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be a nice long and interesting article. Squash 09:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak object. The content seems good enough but I think the prose could probably be improved. The article seems to have some slightly rambling sentences, such as: "However, while undertaking postgraduate work at Ernest Rutherford's famed Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, he came to realize that his forte was theoretical, not experimental physics, as he was quite clumsy in the laboratory working under J.J. Thomson." This sounds a bit like Oppenheimer would not have been clumsy in the laboratory working under some other guy. Another minor point: Shouldn't Göttingen be consistently spelled? -- Haukurth 11:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Point taken! I thought I had gotten rid of the poorer prose with the edits I did before nominating, but I can see a few unfortunate sections slipped by (I also thought I had fixed the Göttingen problem, but I see I did not). I've gone over it all one more time with an eye for unfortunate constructions (of which I think there were only a few real major offenders). --Fastfission 20:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, uhm. I complained about a rambling sentence and you made it longer. :D "While at Harvard he was introduced to experimental physics during a course on thermodynamics taught by Percy Bridgman, and was encouraged to go to Europe for future study, as physics in the USA had not yet acquired significant infrastructure to provide a world-class education, and he was accepted for postgraduate work at Ernest Rutherford's famed Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, working under the emminent but aging J.J. Thomson." Maybe this is acceptable English prose, I'm not the right person to judge. I'd best leave others to criticize the style and move from weak object to neutral for now. (Some of the wiki syntax was leaking after your recent changes, I fixed what I saw.) -- Haukurth 20:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, that sentence needs help. Preferably split it into 2. A minor point, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, gosh, you're right about that (I first tried to make it more coherent, then I tried to make it more revealing, then I didn't bother to try and make it more coherent again). I'll work on that one once again. --Fastfission 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems to adress all important issues I heard about, which makes it comprehensive - the most important thing about an encyclopedic article. Not that more expansion would be bad...it never is. But do adress other objections, language is important. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Very good article --Neigel von Teighen 23:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Phils 09:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support 172 19:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I was about to nominate this myself when I saw that it was a candidate allready. BrokenSegue 16:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Impressive.  Edeans 06:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)