Talk:Interim Committee/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   "Later it advised on legislation" - comma after later Y

   "The final draft of his speech was handed to President Truman at the Potsdam "->" The final draft of President Truman's speech was handed to him at the Potsdam " - pronoun antecedent Y

   "the preparation of press releases for the President and the Secretary of War " - was it a press release or a speech? Why don't you call it a "prepared statement" and use that phrase consistently? "Press releases" plural implies separate ones for the Prez and the SecWar. Was it one or two?

   There were two. Inserted "separate". The practice at the time was for press releases to be read out aloud at a press conference, and copies distributed. Y

   "August 6, Truman announced that:"->"August 6, Truman released the prepared statement which said in part that:" Y

   "Bush, Conant and Irvin Stewart had produced a proposal for legislation to control nuclear energy in July 1944."->" in July 1944, before the Committee formed, Bush, Conant and Irvin Stewart had produced an outline for proposed legislation to control nuclear energy." Y

   "He submitted the proposals" - who is he? Y Conant. Oops. Added.

   " introduced into the Senate legislation for an alternative atomic energy bill,"->" introduced an alternative Senate bill on atomic energy," Y

   Not to be picky, but it was an alternative bill, not an alternative type of atomic energy.

   "even though the War Department bill was primarily a civilian bill as well."->"even though the May-Johnson bill also included primarily civilian control as well." Y re-worded.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

   It was a joint work by myself and User:Cuppysfriend. All the prose quality issues seem to be in my half... I think all the concerns have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take another look at "alternative atomic energy" discussed above and we are done. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on another good article. Racepacket (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)