Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Robert Bacher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Next in the long line of Manhattan Project articles. Unless someone else comes to the party, this will take years. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I did some minor copy editing, please check you are happy with my changes. Overall, I believe that this article meets A-class standards. I have a couple of minor comments about the images:
- "File:Robert F. Bacher.GIF": the image description page currently says "Date: 22 March 2013, 21:42:17", but shouldn't it be the date that the image was taken?
- "File:Bacher, Lilienthal, Pike, Waymack and Strauss.jpg" as above, this says "Date: 26 March 2013, 07:21:06", but shouldn't it be the date the image was taken?
- "File:Jean Dow Bacher Los Alamos ID.png", probably needs a date of creation if you have one;
- "File:Robert Bacher ID badge.png" as above. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- a couple of images need alt text [1]
- all other toolbox checks are green (dab, ext links, reflinks, redirects, earwig, and no overlinking) (no action required)
- suggest "and his wife Jean" in the lead
- what does "visitor" mean with respect to Edward Condon?
- suggest you actually mention Teller by name instead of just a reference to the "Super" bomb
- "200 inches" doesn't really work, it should be 200 inch IMO
- suggest "his wife Jean
hadhaving died"- All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport- Technical review has been done above (no action req'd).
- This doesn't quite sound correctly worded to me: "...on the Zeeman effect of hyperfine structure of atomic levels...". Not really sure what may / may not be wrong with it though (not understanding the physics aspects of the article I'm not sure of the correct terminology). Is it missing a plural somewhere? It just seems awkward to me (also repeated in body of the text). Would this work better: "...the Zeeman effect on the hyperfine structure of atomic levels..."?
- Yes, there was a missing word. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word here: "...Bacher moved back to Ann Arbor, where lived at home..."
- Another missing word. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.