Talk:Val Logsdon Fitch
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Val Logsdon Fitch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Val Logsdon Fitch has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 30, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
This level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Val Logsdon Fitch appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 June 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Val Logsdon Fitch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 20:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I will be engaging in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article and I find that it exceeds the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few suggestions and comments that must be addressed prior to its passage. Thank you for all your phenomenal work on this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Lede
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede adequately stands alone as a concise overview of Fitch's life. The lede defines Fitch's accomplishments, establishes context for Fitch, explains why Fitch is notable, and summarizes the most important points of Fitch's biography.
- The info box template is beautifully formatted, and its contents are cited within the prose, utilizing inline citations.
- The image of Fitch has been released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
- The lede's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose below, and its references are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.
Early life
- I recommend leaving the first paragraph of this section within the "Early life" section, and moving its second and third paragraphs into a section entitled "Early career."
- Done That leaves Early Life with only one paragraph. Normally in scientific biographies, everything up to when they complete their PhD goes into this section. Whereas with military ones it ends when they join the Army. I've created a new section "Manhattan Project", so Fitch's biography now looks like a military one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- While Wikipedia:Inline citation does not specify this, it may improve the flow if citations are consolidated at the end of sentences, but this is merely a suggestion and is not a deal breaker for Good Article status.
- It would not hurt to wiki-link atomic bomb to Nuclear weapon.
- Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no additional comments or suggestions for this section.
Physics
- I recommend renaming this section "Academic career" or "Research career," which may encapsulate its contents better than "Physics."
- Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps reword as "where he became acquainted with James Cronin"
- Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no additional comments or suggestions for this section.
Publications
- This bibliography of works is formatted properly, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.
All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, thank you for addressing my comments and suggestions in such a timely manner. Once again, you've outdone yourself and you have crafted a comprehensive article for Fitch. It's been a privilege reviewing this article, and it is hereby a pleasure for me to pass this article to Good Article status. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
"the answer to the physicist’s 'Why do we exist?'"
[edit]This has bothered me since it showed up on the Main Page's "Did you know?" section.
It seems this is a quip, and it was presented as if it was THE one objective answer to this question. It's presented as if someone asked ANY physicist the vague question "Why do we exist?" the automatic response for most of them would be to mention Fitch's work. Is this really the case? It's definitely a necessary condition for human life, but hardly sufficient. I'm not a scientists, but it seems that it's possible to make the case that any number of facts from the article Fine-tuned Universe could be equally presented as "the answer."
Anyway, I'm reluctant to change something that linked to the Main Page, but it just feels misleading the way quote is presented as more than just one person's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresdnhope (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- GA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- GA-Class vital articles in People
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (military) articles
- Low-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- GA-Class physics articles
- High-importance physics articles
- GA-Class physics articles of High-importance
- GA-Class physics biographies articles
- Physics biographies articles
- GA-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- GA-Class Columbia University articles
- Low-importance Columbia University articles
- WikiProject Columbia University articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
- GA-Class Nebraska articles
- Unknown-importance Nebraska articles
- WikiProject Nebraska articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class Chicago articles
- Unknown-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles