Talk:Metallurgical Laboratory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 13:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose taking on this review. At a preliminary glance, the article looks comprehensive and well-written. I will study it in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

I particularly liked the "Origins" section which I thought very helpful.
"Compton discussed how plutonium might be produced in a nuclear reactor with Eugene Wigner from Princeton University, and how plutonium produced in a reactor might be chemically separated from uranium with Robert Serber." - This sentence is a bit confusing, perhaps it could be rearranged so that the people are mentioned earlier.
"It fell to Compton to decide which of the different types of reactor designs that the scientists should pursue, even though a successful reactor had not yet been built." - This is confusing too.
"... where war work had not yet taken them away," - This could be expressed better.
What did the "United States Army Corps of Engineers" take over?
Explain who "Allison" is the first time he is mentioned in the main text, ie wikilink in lead and main text.
"Extensive work was subsequently carried out on the ventilation system allow the laboratory to work with plutonium." - Missing word.
" A site containing an ice house and stables that was owned by the University in Chicago were made available in April 1943." - Should be "was" rather than "were".
"Construction of facilities including and service buildings and an access road was commenced in September 1942" - Sentence needs attention.
"Fermi designed a new pile, "pile" of uranium and graphite" - Do we need both these piles?
As you have section headings "Chicago Pile-1" and "Chicago Pile-3", it would seem logical to have "Chicago Pile-2".
"... in which the moderator and fuel arranged in a geometric configuration called a "lattice"." - Missing word.
On the whole the article is excellent at explaining concepts that might be unfamiliar to the reader, so what is the "canning process"?
"Under bombardment by neutrons, the graphite in the moderator will be knocked out of its crystalline structure." - I would have thought the present tense could be used here.
You could add an explanation of what the "Bismuth phosphate process" is for.
"By year's end," - two years were mentioned in the previous sentence.
"... taking with him taking a substantial chunk of the Metallurgical Laboratory's staff" - Needs attention.
Looking back now at the lead, it seems to be rather short in comparison with the whole article. It includes little on personnel or health and safety for example.
- That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made all the suggested changes here. Any further suggestions about expanding the lead are welcome. I find leads particularly hard to write. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, leads are difficult, but I am satisfied with your improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout. Action has been taken on the points I raised during the review.
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article is stable.
The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]