Talk:SOGIN

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SOGIN/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The comprehension of the article is good.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Clear and concise prose.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Article is complaint with the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has a list of references and all the lines have in-line citations.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used appear to be reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No instance of original research was found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Two instances of close paraphrasing found through Earwig's. (Resolved)	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive enough.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article may be missing some major aspects. (Resolved)	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article remains on topic.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
No neutrality issues were found.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No ongoing content dispute, edit warring or major changes.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article has adequate illustrations.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Copyright issues were found. (Resolved)	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Captions are appropiate.	Pass

Overall: The article meets the good article criteria. Pass

Comments

• Hello Simongraham! I'll be the one to review this article and will present the review shortly. Hopefully, I get to learn something new from it and that my feedback will be helpful to you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Issues with copyright and image suggestion: Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2014, SOGIN signed an agreement with China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), to share expertise on nuclear decommissioning, remove parts from the nuclear fuel pool of a Chinese plant, develop policies and strategies to manage radioactive waste and used fuel in China and undertake a joint study of an innovative process for the minimization, treatment and conditioning of radioactive waste in Italy" is a close paraphrasing of the citation. This should be re-worded.

• I have reworded this.

• "On this basis, in April 2007, SOGIN signed a contract with Areva and a shipment of spent fuel from the Caorso nuclear power plant to France was completed in June 2010" is also a close paraphrasing of the citation which needs to be re-worded.

• I have reworded this and restructured the section so that it flows a bit better.

• The images of Giuseppe Nucci and Luca Desiata have questionable copyright statuses. The Nucci one has been tagged for CSD on commons. In general, I think these images can be a bit confusing as well since the years under them don't correspond with the years of their appointment so I'd suggest removing them. The article isn't that long so the image of the HQ suffices, the chart and the logo suffices as illustrations, if you really want to add images I'd suggest using images of the nuclear plants instead.

• I have removed them and added a relevant image from one of the plants.
• @Tayi Arajakate: Please take a look at my changes. I have also added archive URLs which were missing. simongraham (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Simongraham, I apologise for being so late with completing the review. The article as it stands mostly fulfills the good article criteria. One thing that stands out that the article discusses in fair depth, the national repository and its international activities but does not discuss the de-commissioning process of the Italian plants themselves, without which the article looks incomplete, there is a scope for expansion here.

  Another minor issue is that the first line of International activity states that "[I]n the interim, waste material has been sent abroad, primarily to France and the UK." This line would appear confusing to those who may not have read the earlier section so it should clarify that it refers to the period before the construction of the repository. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Tayi Arajakate: That is an excellent spot. I have added a section on the decontamination work and amended the sentence. Please take another look. simongraham (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  Simongraham, could it provide more details on if and when specific plants were de-commissioned and in what stages of de-commissioning they are in? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Tayi Arajakate: Thank you. I have added some data on the timescales of the decommissioning and the predicted end of the whole process from third party sources as per WP:VER. As this is an article on the organisation SOGIN, I am wary of going into too much detail that would be more appropriate in the articles on the plants themselves as per WP:SS. Please tell me if what I have written meets your needs. simongraham (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Simongraham, I think it's alright but could be expanded more, although as it stands it is comprehensive enough for a good article. I'd argue that since the decommissioning of plants is the primary activity of the organisation, specifics regarding it should be presented in more detail. There is one minor issue with the new section, the prose could be better, it reads more like a textbook, i.e phrases such as "[W]ork initially starts with a pre-decommissioning stage", "[O]nce this stage is complete", etc. Hopefully, you will look into it but since this is fairly minor, I'm passing it as a good article and sorry again for the big delay. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)