Talk:Dayton Project/GA1
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 11:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I look forward to reviewing another fascinating article by you, Hawkeye7. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. As you might have noticed I use a template when starting my reviews so you will find this on the pages I'm reviewing. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:
- Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
- If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
- Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.
Assessment
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Could improve, and will await further comment |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See comments |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Verified |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Commentary
- An overall excellent article.
- The lead needs to be expanded to incorporate more about the article, it's quite short. The espionage aspect could be mentioned.
- This article would benefit from an extra 1-2 sentences at the start of each section acting as a topic sentence or to provide some additional context. Stating in general what each section is about would help improve readability
- “This fortune had come in large part from profits made during World War I on airplanes that never flew” suggest add "in wartime"
- Research: You provide some equations and state they are to extract the polonium from the lead oxide, but the equations don't have polonium within them?
Yet to verify
Done- No other concerns
There are no problems that are preventing promotion, but I will await response on my comments above before I make that change.
Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Expanded the lead. Mentioned the espionage
- We could add "in wartime", but no airplanes were produced. Contracts were terminated after the war ended.
- When extracting the polonium from the lead oxide, it is easier to work with the lead. If you were separating sand from sugar, the easiest way would be to add boiling water causing the sugar to dissolve.
- Thanks for your review!