Talk:Nova (laser)

Nova (laser) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 26, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
February 15, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

minor suggestions to make this qualifiy as a GA

great article but it needs a little more to be GA

in the lead, perhaps a one-sentence explanation of "ignition" could replace the comment that it is long sought.
in general more references to peer reviewed papers would be good. Try to have at least one source that supports all the claims about nova's performance and potential that is not nova's own website.
what was and is the main motivation for building a $100 million laser system? this should be in the lead too.
Maybe the fact that all the laser systems you mention were primarily aimed at nuclear weapons research should be somewhere in the beginning too? but Ill leave that one up to you.
the paragraph about all the amplifiers and their sizes is confusing and does not add anything to the understanding of the laser system (other than the fact that there are a bunch of amplifiers)
link to Nuclear fusion

especially 1,2,5 are important if these things are fixed, I would be happy to support this article as GA. --V. 01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing (sorry, been elsewhere for a while). Refs are difficult though, since leaving university I no longer have access to primary materials, but since in this case the LLNL was the principle investigator, I believe it's fair to consider them authoritative in all matters pertaining to dates and powers. Maury 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright tags, GA, and the LLNL images

I like this article. However, one thing I noticed was that the LLNL images were all tagged with {{PD-USGov}}. LLNL operates under a DOE contract, if these images are PD then it would be more appropriate to mark them with {{PD-USGov-DOE}}. To further complicates things, Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE mentions that LLNL's copyright disclaimer is somewhat ambiguous. In the absence of an explicit statement from LLNL that a particular image is PD, they should probably be modified to use {{Fair use in|Article}} tags and add detailed fair use rationale. —RP88 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for clarification of these policies at both the LLNL and Argonne. In both cases my e-mail simply disappeared into the aether. It's good to know that the labs we entrust with nuclear weapons seems so woefully unable to answer an e-mail! Anyway I followed up the Argonne e-mail with a phone call to one of the people mentioned in one of the photographs, and that too resulted in no answers. I'm not sure this will ever be resolved.

In the meantime I'd suggest that leaving the tags as-is does not appear to be unduly "dangerous". I personally suspect that the copy notices on their web sites are not enforceable, and fall under more general guidelines for federal agencies. But IANAL, so I can't say for sure. Maury 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on ID vs. DD

Delgr had mentioned to me some time ago that Nova used indirect drive. However I clearly remembered several articles on the topic from the 1980s in general science magazines (notably National Geographic, which I didn't normally read) that all implied that Nova used a direct drive method.

After several e-mails back and forth with LLNL, the reason for this confusion has become clear. Indirect drive was not generally publicized until 1993. Since I had left the physics world by that point, the release of this information flew under my radar. I'm not sure why that date in particular, but it seems like a major coincidence that this is the same date as the start of NIF.

Maury 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted from GA

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 15, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. This article has been delisted from GA due to insufficient inline citations. The GA criteria were changed in 2006 to include mandatory inline references, and this article may have been passed before this change was adequately publicised. I've passed the article on to the unreferenced GA task force. --jwanders^Talk 10:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nova (laser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NIF

This acronym should be explained in detail at least once if the acronym's used 11 times. 2A01:4B00:E038:FC00:814:75DF:41BD:30F9 (talk) 2A01:4B00:E038:FC00:814:75DF:41BD:30F9 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]