Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lise Meitner/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2024 [1].

Lise Meitner

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC) and Gah4 (talk)[reply]

This article is about Lise Meitner, the Austrian physicist who was the co-discover of the element protactinium and nuclear fission. She spent much of her scientific career in Berlin, Germany, where she was a physics professor and a department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. She fled to Sweden after Austria was absorbed into Germany in 1938. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have switched the lead image to a new one I found in the Library of Congress. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like queries on File:Lise_Meitner12.jpg, File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg, File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg, File:Lise_Meitner_standing_at_meeting_with_Arthur_H._Compton_and_Katherine_Cornell.jpg are still pending, as well as the layout issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine

[edit]

I'll drop some comments pretty soon. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 14:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- My comments are so minor that you already have my support. Well done! When all is done, I'd appreciate a review of the narwhal FAC. Thanks, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • You bold Elise Meitner in the Early years section, but you already mention this name in the lede - it should probably just be bolded there.
    Yes. Emboldened as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm slightly unclear what "advanced education" means in this context. Merely attending college, or becoming academics in their own right?
    Tertiary education. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897, and she completed her final year of school in 1892 I think this would make more sense with the clauses reversed, and moved after the following sentence; this way, it'd flow naturally into the "only career available" part.
    Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some context on what either her masters or doctoral theses were about could be interesting.
    The title translations are mine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Circumspect" seems like a bit of an obscure word here. Also "egalitarian" is a bit confusing - I know we're talking about how Hahn drank a lot of Respect Women Juice, but it's phrased confusingly in this portion.
    Germany was very formal society at the time. Oppenheimer, for example, once made the mistake of addressing Arnold Sommerfeld as "Professor" instead of "Geheimrat". Removed. I need to strike the right note here. For a man of his time, Hahn was progressive in his attitudes towards women. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later that year, perhaps fearing that Meitner was in financial difficulties and might return to Vienna, since her father had died in 1910, Planck appointed her his assistant at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in the Friedrich Wilhelm University I think it might be best to remove the "since her father had died" clause. Maybe split it up; "Meitner may have entered financial difficulties after the death of her father in 1910. Possibly due to this, Planck appointed her..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You reference prices in marks a lot, but a modern reader has no context. Is there a way we can have conversions? There's likely a template for the mark. (Tho these might be best as efns after each quote rather than as in-line text)
    I don't know how to do this. I will ask and see in anyone else does. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Betty Logan showed me how, so added currency conversions to euros. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fortuitous" is somewhat vague, since it can either mean "by chance" or "fortunately". Just using fortunately would be a lot clearer in this context.

That's all for now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: These changes look great! Happy to Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

This looks interesting. I'll try to find the time to review it in the next few days. As an initial comment, "what was now Nazi Germany" in the WP:LEAD would make more sense to me as "what was by then Nazi Germany". TompaDompa (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • There are quite a few places where I think the article would benefit from being more clear and explicit about the geography and geopolitics. Those conditions, especially during the pre-World War I period, will only become more unfamiliar to readers as time goes on, so I think it important to future-proof the article, as it were. I've made a number of specific comments about this below.
Lead
Early years
Education
Friedrich Wilhelm University
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry
World War I and the discovery of protactinium
  • Actinium being element 89 is rather important context that is missing here.
  • "the search for the mother isotope of actinium. According to the radioactive displacement law of Fajans and Soddy, this had to be an isotope of the undiscovered element 91" – I'm confused. They knew about beta decay, and the article has already stated that Hahn and Meitner made money off of radium-228 ("mesothorium"), which beta decays to actinium (as do other isotopes of radium, for that matter). Why did they assume the mother isotope had to be an alpha emitter?
    Presumably they detected alpha radiation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the isotope they had found was a beta emitter, and therefore could not be the mother isotope of actinium." – I understand why beta decay of element 91 cannot produce element 89, but I don't think this is clear to the average reader.
  • "In 1914 Hahn and Meitner developed a new technique for separating the tantalum group from pitchblende, which they hoped would speed the isolation of the new isotope." – this is jumping back in time a bit, so I would say that they had done so.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not only Hahn but most of the students, laboratory assistants and technicians had been called up" – I gather this is "called up" in the sense of "summoned to serve in the armed forces" as opposed to "personally selected (for some particular purpose more generally)". Maybe I'm an outlier, but I come across this phrase more frequently in the latter sense than in the former, and so think this should be rephrased somewhat to eliminate ambiguity/lack of clarity.
    As a military historian, I have never seen it used in that sense. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, from what I can gather, rather common in sports. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they devised a series of indicator tests to eliminate other known alpha emitters. The only known ones with similar chemical behaviour were lead-210 (which decays to alpha emitter polonium-210) and thorium-230" – this doesn't quite work. I might suggest replacing the first "alpha emitters" with "sources of alpha [particles/radiation]". I would also add "via bismuth-210" to the parenthetical statement.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The connection to uranium remained a mystery, as neither of the known isotopes of uranium decayed into protactinium." – I don't think it's clear why a connection to uranium should be expected in the first place? I might also note which those known isotopes of uranium were.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mother isotope, uranium-235" – technically uranium-235 is the grandmother isotope of protactinium(-231), no?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uranium-235, was discovered in 1929" – according to the linked article, it was discovered in 1935. Which is wrong?
    The source says it was in 1929. The linked article has no sources, but I found Dempster's 1935 Nature article. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beta radiation
Nazi Germany
Transmutation
  • "Irène Curie and Frédéric Joliot irradiated aluminium foil with alpha particles, and found that this results in a short-lived radioactive isotope of phosphorus. They noted that positron emission continued after the neutron emissions ceased." – neutron emissions? Not alpha particle bombardment? It would make perfect sense to me if positron emission continuing after the alpha irradiation ceased was viewed as evidence of radioactivity (as opposed to the bombardment "knocking loose" positrons directly or something), but I can't quite figure out the text as it is, which is why I'm suspecting an error of some kind (or maybe I'm just bad at nuclear physics).
    You are correct. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Escape from Germany
  • "On 1 August she took the train to Stockholm, where she was met at Göteborg station by Eva von Bahr." – this phrasing makes it sound like she was met by von Bahr at Göteborg station in Stockholm, which is of course nonsensical. Did she take the Stockholm-bound train and disembark at Göteborg? Or did she take the train to Stockholm and was joined from Göteborg by von Bahr? The former sounds much more likely as Kungälv, where they went next, is much closer to Göteborg than to Stockholm.
    The former. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 9 November" – WP:EASTEREGG.
    removed link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the results of the experiments, particularly the supposed discovery of isomers of radium" – the what now? Unless I've missed something major, this has not been mentioned previously.
    More details in the main article. Alluded to above in the final paragraph on transmutation. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear fission
Nobel Prize for nuclear fission
  • I don't think this heading really works. It sticks out a bit from the other (which it wouldn't if it were plain "Nobel Prize"), but more importantly it belies that Meitner did not receive the Nobel Prize. I don't have any good alternative suggestion right now, however.
    Changed to "Nobel Prize"
  • "On 15 November 1945, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that Hahn had been awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry" – this looks like an error, but it isn't one. I would definitely add an explanatory footnote about the one-year delay.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The five-member physics committee included Manne Siegbahn, his former student Erik Hulthén, the professor of experimental physics at Uppsala University, and Axel Lindh, who eventually succeeded Hulthén." – if that's three people, the first and third commas need to be semicolons.
    Added sme-colons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner" – that their relationship was poor came as news to me, as there was not really anything obvious above to suggest so—or did I miss it?
    It is the first mention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner was a factor here, as was the bias towards experimental rather than theoretical physics (a bias that did not help Chien-Shiung Wu when she was omitted from the Nobel Prize for her experimental work and the prize awarded to two men for their theoretical work)." - this borders on snide. The intended meaning is clearly that the exclusion was due to bias against women, the implicit (but unsubtle) argument being that even a bias in favour of a particular subfield was later not enough for a woman to be awarded. If the accusation of gender bias is attributable to appropriate sources, make it explicitly and attribute it to those sources. If it is not, remove the implicit one. If the mention of Chien-Shiung Wu being omitted from the Nobel Prize is retained, the year should be given.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hahn's receipt of a Nobel Prize was long expected." – the word "receipt" stands out to me as I almost never encounter it in any other sense than, well, receipt. I would suggest rephrasing here.
    Tightened text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section feels quite a bit like it was written to be later in the article than it currently is, beginning with "Despite the many honours that Meitner received in her lifetime" (as though referring back to the "Awards and honours" section), discussing the poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner (which is mentioned in the following section, "Later life", even if only briefly), and just generally covering events that happened at a later point in time than the first couple of paragraphs of the following section. This is, I think, a rather serious issue with the structure of the article at present. My suggestion would be to remove this section, add the Nobel Prize stuff in its proper chronological place in the following section in a "just the facts" manner, and move the analysis of the Nobel Prize stuff to the last section (which could optionally be renamed "Legacy" or something).
    Changed as suggested. (But it was never intended to be later in the article.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Later life
Awards and honours

Ping Hawkeye7. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this interpretation of WP:PROPORTIONAL, but even if we I did, it does not agree with the sources. This can be seen in Frisch (1970) pp. 415-416. Of course, it only goes up to 1970. There is also Sime (1999), p. 267. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I quite understand the second part, but if the disagreement here stems from differing interpretations of policy it would seem we are at an impasse and that the coordinators will have to decide whether this is actionable. I took a look at Frisch (1970), and it does indeed list awards and a few other honours (though not things named after her—granted, there may not have been much to list at the time). I am not sure exactly what source Sime (1999) is—suspecting the year might be a typo I looked at Sime (1990) and Sime (1996), though I did not find anything relevant on p. 267 in either case—so I have not been able to check whether the weight in the article matches the weight in that source. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be pp. 365-366. I am in Europe and have no access to my books at present. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, of Sime (1996)? That's available on the Internet Archive, and pp. 365–366 covers awards and honours, but not things named after Meitner. TompaDompa (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

A fine article overall, only the source formatting seems to be a bit off. Matarisvan (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

[edit]

I'm pleased to see an article about a female scientist here, thank you for such an excellent effort. With the caveat that I am not a native speaker, here are some comments. Feel free to ignore.

  • The repetition of her name in bold is not great. I know of no specific guideline but in earlier FAs I have applied the use of " to introduce the commonly used first name. For example Nancy Sophie Cornélie "Corry" Tendeloo. So could Elise "Lise" Meitner be an option?
    There is a specific guideline. MOS:BOLD: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I avoided the construct 'Elise "Lise" Meitner' because that would give the impression that it was a nickname, and it was not. Note that she signed her papers "Dr. Lise Meitner". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was one of those responsible for the discovery of the element protactinium and the discovery of nuclear fission --> who was instrumental in the discovery of protactinium and nuclear fission
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry there --> can we drop "there"?
    Another editor wanted it clarified that the KWI was in Berlin.
  • to be with other family members --> to be with her family members, or, perhaps: to be with family members
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She also adopted the shortened name "Lise" --> is it known when?
    Not known. Her matura was recorded under the name Elise Meitner. "Lise's name also changed slightly from its original Elise. In Berlin such things might have caused a flurry of paperwork; in Vienna it made no difference." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She completed her final year of school --> from reading onwards I gather this is not secondary school. Would it not be better to explicitly say primary school here?
    She went to a high school for girls that went to what in my country would be year 8. This might be consider primary school depending on where the reader is. So it would not be better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897--> I don't get the "but". And would the list of subjects at school not be better placed with the earlier sentence about final year of school?
    Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the girls --> at age 23 she is not a girl. And the others were introduced as other young women. So "women" instead of girls
    She was 22, but point taken. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only four out of fourteen girls --> same thing
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was particularly inspired by Boltzmann --> to avoid confusion, perhaps professor Boltzmann
    Changed to "Ludwig Boltzmann". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Examination of a Maxwell Formula" --> "Examination of a Maxwell equation"
    Sure. Pardon my MilHist German. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thermal Conduction in Inhomogeneous Bodies" --> "Thermal conduction in inhomogeneous bodies"
    Title, so used title case. German conventions are different. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • she went further and made predictions based on her explanation, and then verified them experimentally --> this seems like a notable event that should be described in a bit more detail: what kind of optics issue are we talking about, what did she predict, how did she verify?
    Sources do not say; I have the journal reference, but copies are not available online, or in hard copy outside Germany. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meitner was introduced by Stefan Meyer--> is it known when?
    In 1906. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led Ernest Rutherford to predict the nuclear atom. She submitted her findings to the Physikalische Zeitschrift on 29 June 1907. --> From this order I infer that Rutherford made the prediction before her publication, and thus that there was some sort of informal communication between them. Is this the case?
    No; he read her paper. Revered the sentences to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • , and shared her love of music --> because of that comma, I read this with Meitner being the subject of the verb shared. But I guess you meant the twins to be the subject, am I right?
    Yes. Not sure what can be done here; changed to "Meitner's love of music". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the first years Meitner worked together with Hahn they co-authored three papers in 1908, and six more in 1909 --> During the first two years Meitner worked together with Hahn, they co-authored nine papers: three in 1908, six in 1909
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • physical separation method known as radioactive recoil --> I assume that is the same as atomic recoil, and thus should be linked, right?
    Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • discovered two more new isotopes --> which ones specifically?
    Sigh. Bismuth-211 and Thalium-207. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this more pitchblende was required, and --> For this yet more pitchblende was required, but
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who independently discovered it in 1923 --> when did Meitner discover it?
    In 1922. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vor allem steht ihre chemische Verschiedenheit von allen bisher bekannten Elementen außerhalb jeder Diskussion --> I don't think we need the German here
    I would prefer to keep it, so the reder knows that I am not misquoting or misrepresenting Hahn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • at Manne Siegbahn's new laboratory [sv] --> better link label would be at the Manne Siegbahn Laboratory [sv]
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • amiable --> not sure I would use this. I'm sure Sigvard was amiable, but we might need quite a few sources first before we can say this
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • reached a similar conclusion --> similar to what? + state when he said this
    Moved this paragraph back where it belonged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it remarkable that Meitner lived so long and did not seem to have suffered any radiation damage. She must have been really careful from the beginning. This is just a thought, no need to act on it.
    Ditto for Otto Hahn, who also made it to age 89. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on prose. I will look at other aspects later today. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Notes section:

References section:

I did a few spotchecks and all checked out fine. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I believe this fine article meets the FA standard. Thanks again for all your work. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

"On 1 August she took the train to Göteborg station in Sweden." I don't think it was possible to do this journey by train in the 1940s. Was it? John (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Copenhagen to Stockholm? In 1938? Sure. It became difficult after Denmark was invaded in April 1940. (example ticket) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the Øresund would have been in the way, which was not bridged until 2000. I imagine some kind of ferry or boat train must have been involved in 1938. It sounds funny if you know the geography to just say "took the train". What do the sources say? John (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 August, she left for Sweden. Again the trip was beautiful. Eva von Bahr-Bergius was waiting for her at the Göteborg station. Together they continued by train and then steamer to Eva's home in Kungälv, a small town on the west coast where Lise planned to stay until September.

There was a train ferry when I made the trip in 1998. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the regional administrative board of Skåne train ferry service opened between Elsinore and Helsingborg in 1892, and between Copenhagen and Malmö in 1895. Draken Bowser (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you happy with my edits so far? John (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I note that another editor wanted it clarified that Berlin is in Germany and Stockholm in Sweden. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about calling her "Jewish Austrian" in the lead. Could we say "Austrian Jewish"? John (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trimmed the "Jewish" from the lead sentence. Her Jewishness was only defintionally important to the Nazis. She was a scientist, not a religious figure. We find out about her ethnicity and the trouble it caused her in her life, but I do not think it is needed in the first sentence. Happy to discuss, of course.John (talk)
      Sure. Meitner's problem was sexism, not racism, up until the Nazis came on the scene. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for your work on this fine article. John (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Well, this is a high-profile topic if there ever was one. Keeping my usual caveat about not being familiar with the topic in mind, I wonder if there is any dedicated discussion to the conflict with the Nazis. It seems like we are using mostly academic publications and major publishers. What makes http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com/Lise_Meitner_and_Nuclear_Fission.html a reliable source? #112, should that give Nobel Prize rather than www.nobelprize.org? Especially since #113 does. Bit inconsistent with retrieval dates - #118 doesn't have one but #145 does? I wonder why only one German biography is used. What is the logic between placing some publications into Further Reading? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Removed www.orlandoleibovitz.com. Changed #112. Added date to #118.
  2. More than one German biography was actually used, but WP:NONENG: English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.
  3. Further reading: in the case of this article, the Further reading section dates back to 2005 and is actually older than the text of the article. It seems that readers proposed these sources but none of the works was ever used as a source. I do not remove material without a good reason. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm, in this case I wonder if some of these Further Reading could be used as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, Gah4 (talk) ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could incorporate some of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cut the Further reading back and added a couple of them to the article. I do not have access to the remaining book. I do have access to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article, but since that is a book review of one of the major sources in the article, I have retained it in the Further reading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how's that? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lise_Meitner/archive1&oldid=1245264214"