Wikipedia:Peer review/Effects of nuclear explosions/archive1

Effects of nuclear explosions
A very important topic in view of current events, and something people will be looking for an accurate, up-to-date source on. So I ask, what keeps this article from being a Featured Article? I know there's going to be a lot, but that's always our goal, isn't it? Judgesurreal777 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  11:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * what keeps this article from being a Featured Article?
 * 1) History section almost absent. Please expand it. Reduce the dependence on tables and prosify as far as possible.
 * 2) Inline references needed where appropriate.
 * 3) Balance the sections. Some are long, and some are short. Expand/summarise where necessary.
 * 4) Cockroaches?


 * I'd say the opposite about the history, actually -- I think it would be better to scrap it to the extent that the history is just about the development of the nuclear weapon. The article would be most useful if it focused closely on the effects of a nuclear explosion; it would then serve its role very well as a subpage of the main nuclear weapon article. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall lots of good info but needs to be clearer & more readable by the general public. MGSpiller 01:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The units are inconsistent, particularly for pressures.
 * Would adding the radii for damage to people due to shockwave pressure to the table be an improvement?
 * The Effects of a nuclear explosion section repeats itself & is unweildy, needs to be more concise & clearer. It should tie together with the following Direct & Indirect sections better e.g. the %ages don't include a figure for the EMP, presumably it's counted as part of the ionising radiation.
 * What is GR in the table? Presumably ground range.
 * Is a vortex ring not another way of saying mushroom cloud or at least to do with the shape of the mushroom cloud, these should be tied together.
 * At the top of the effects section a figure of 5% of the energy being ionising radiation is given then the ionising radiation section quotes 50%. Presumably one is measured at the nuclear device & the other is measured at an arbitrary distance once most of the ionising radiation has been converted into other effects.


 * This article apparently isn't attempting to treat the causes of a nuclear explosion, e.g. the design of an atomic weapon or the related physics. So it might be worth renaming it to something like Effects of nuclear explosions, or any name that better reflects exactly what this article is about. Another point: I'd like to see a little more on the applications, which are mentioned in the lead but not again. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Several stylistic issues:
 * 1) The list of possible uses of nuclear weapons needs to go lower here, or in a separate article.
 * 2) Give a good copyedit to the History of nuclear explosions section. It is missing several serial commas and should be split into several sentences to avoid a run-on.
 * 3) Severely needs inline citations. You also need to convert "bare" links to footnotes.
 * 4) Use seealso, mainarticle and other article-linking templates.
 * 5) It's missing several key details: for example, it talks about the equilibrium temperature of the surrounding areas, but does not tell you what that temperature is.
 * 6) A layman does not why you're calling X-rays "soft" - you need to explain more about that.
 * 7) Several grammar issues. I've corrected most of them, but you need someone to go over and copyedit the entire article.
 * 8) Weasel words. "Some eardrums would probably rupture..." do they rupture or not? Do you have a source for that?
 * 9) Overall, it is a bit too technical, and needs some "dumbing down" to be brilliant prose. It still checks out on everything else, though. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)