Talk:Atomic Energy Act of 1946/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 23:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Hawkeye7

I've read the article and made some notes. It's very strong, but the most important and troubling issue with the article is the existance of close paraphrasing.

Sovacool's paper says "The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 in the US encouraged private corporations to build nuclear reactors... A significant learning phase followed with a slew of early meltdowns and accidents at experimental reactors and research facilities, leading to the introduction of the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, an implicit admission..." This Wikipedia article states "The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 encouraged private corporations to build nuclear reactors; a significant learning phase followed, with many early partial core meltdowns and accidents at experimental reactors and research facilities. This led to the introduction of the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957, which was 'an implicit admission...'" This is way too close, and needs to be reworded from scratch, getting as far from the source's wording as possible.

Howard Morland's essay says "When the Atomic Energy Act became law, it defined a new legal term “restricted data” as “all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power,” unless the information has been declassified. The phrase “all data” included every suggestion, speculation, scenario, or rumor—past, present, or future, regardless of its source, or even of its accuracy—unless it was declassified." This Wikipedia article states "It defined a new legal term, "restricted data", as "all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power," unless the information has been declassified. The phrase "all data" included every suggestion, speculation, scenario or rumor—past, present or future, regardless of its source, or even of its accuracy—unless it was specifically declassified." This is almost a word-for-word copy; it needs to be completely rewritten to avoid using any of the source's creative language.

It is acceptible to quickfail GA candidates with close paraphrasing issues, but I don't think that's appropriate here. I see that all these issues were already present by the time you, Hawkeye7, got involved in the article, and they are not problems you introduced. I have also looked for close paraphrasing issues in Hewlett&Anderson, Jones, Miller, and Reubhausen (who together constitute most of the sourcing for the article), and have not found any further close-paraphrasing issues. If you can fix these two existing issues, I think we can consider the article to be copyvio-free. Once those are done, the less important issues below can be addressed.

The first one was only recently inserted by Johfos on 7 December. I have re-worded it. The second has been there since 2007, and was inserted by HowardMorland, who probably saw no problem in using his own creative language. Should I re-word it too? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez, that was actually Morland himself? Yeah, it should probably be reworded for a number of reasons (tone, avoiding confusion, not having to submit an OTRS statement), but it's not as deal-breakingly important as if it had been a copy-vio. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was Howard himself, so no copyvio per se. I've re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization: Sometimes "Bill" is capitalized in the names of bills (e.g. May-Johnson Bill) and sometimes not (Royall-Marbury bill). This should be consistent.
I'm not sure what the usual form is, but I have capitalised it whenever it is in a title (as above) but left it in lower case when it is just "the bill". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organization: It seems to me that the May-Johnson Bill section is prelude to the bill, and should either be a subsection of the Origins section, or should be organized in such a way as to make it clear that it's part of what led up to the AEA. Or perhaps the "May-Johnson Bill" and "MacMahon Bill" sections should be subsections of a "Creation of the Act" section, or something, separating it from sections regarding the Act after its existance. What do you think?
I see this has been fixed. I like the organization you used. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: The lead does not adequately cover material from all sections of the article.
Expanded. Let me know if there is something else that should be covered. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repitition: In the first paragraph of the "May-Johnson Bill" section, it twice says the commission could "acquire property".
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity: I'm not sure what this means: "The 'wall of secrecy' set up by the Act confined research and development within the country and government." Could you reword?
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity: When you say Douglas "vigorously defended the section against counterarguments", do you mean Section 10? The previous paragraph said that the section "became 'Control of Information'" and by now "contained" the born secret doctrine and "defined" the term "restricted data". So when this paragraph says she defended the section, it sounds like she's defending the new pro-secrecy provisions. But the next sentence makes it sound like she was opposing the new secrecy. This could be clearer.
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing question: The last sentence of the "Private production of nuclear energy" section is quite a strong statement. I can't see the original source. Do you have that source? Does it fully back that statement? What does it say?
No, I don't. It seems debatable even if supported by the source, and is wandering off-topic. So I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: The article states that the Price-Anderson act "was 'an implicit admission that nuclear power provided risks that producers were unwilling to assume without federal backing'." This is correctly cited to Sovacool's statement, but it's Sovacol's interpretation, which could be contested. I don't think we can state that the act was an implicit admission, though we could say that it was interpreted by Sovacol as an implicit admission.
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and References: Most sources are fully cited in the References, with short harvard references in the "Notes". But Byrne&Hoffman and Sovacool are fully given in the Notes. I think it would be an improvement to treat those sources like the others (though this is not a requirement for GA status).
Due to Johfos's recent amendments. I have moved the references down to the notes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your improvements are terrific, Hawkeye7. I think all that's left is to reword Morland's bit, and it'll be good to go. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. This article passes all our GA criteria—it's well-written, verifiable with no original research, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and appropriately illustrated. I'm pleased to promote it to GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]