Talk:Val Logsdon Fitch

GA Review

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)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

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)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   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?'"

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)