GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 14:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


This has waited way too long for a review. I'll try to get to it in the next few days. Wizardman 14:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for this. The article has been in the queue for ages. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated Pontecorvo as a physicist rather than a military figure because, although he worked on reactor development for the Manhattan Project, he never worked on weapons development. Big mistake on my part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with the image review, they all look good, but File:Carlo Franzinetti e Bruno Pontecorvo.jpg should be modified. I would believe it is public domain in the same manner the other personal images are, but "too commonly published" is not how copyright claims work, that part definitely needs fixing. Wizardman 15:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was from CERN, but they say they got it from Wikimedia Commons. It is in the PD in Italy, and since Franzinetti died in the 1980, it is highly likely that it was taken before 1978, and is therefore PD in the US too; but I cannot be sure. So I have removed the image from the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. As for the sources, they all check out on reliability; no copyright check since they're pretty much all online but assuming good faith on that end. Only irk is that the final ref should have a language icon to go along with it, otherwise that's all fine as well. Hopefully I'll be able to do the prose review tomorrow. Wizardman 15:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added lang=Russian, but we don't get little icons any more. Also added a trans-title, but the translation is mine, and my Russian is limited. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found on the prose front:

Up to Oklahoma, will try to finish rest later today. Wizardman 15:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything remaining in the article I went ahead and fixed myself. Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article. In particular, I appreciated that the more scientific spots in the article were easy to read and understand. Wizardman 15:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]