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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks again for all the good work you're doing on the nuclear physics topics. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This looks like a good start, and is clearly comprehensive. My main concern is with the quality of the some of the sourcing. It's probably inevitable that Seaborg's autobiography has to be a main source here, but I wonder if some obituaries or similar sources could be found to transfer part of this load from primary to secondary sources. Some assessments of Seaborg's work in particular seem to need sourcing. More specific concerns below. Thanks again for your work on this one -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• His birth name in the infobox doesn't appear right if he was born "Glen"
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "His term came at a time of considerable controversy during the time of the free speech movement" -- this is fairly murky to me. "The free speech movement" implies the reader should already know the context or that there's only one. Is there an easy way to clarify this--i.e., "a movement for free speech on campus"? "A national movement for free speech rights for X?"
  • Y The Free Speech Movement? Linked, and re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Seaborg Report is credited with influencing the federal policy towards academic science for the next eight years." -- this seems a bit close to weasel wording; can we say who credited it this way? As a judgement/assessment, this could also use a citation.
  • Y I've looked at a dozen sources, and they all track back to Seaborg. Re-written . Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I tried to clarify the timeline of the Kennedy/Nixon news story to make it clear JFK wasn't in office yet but Nixon still in, to avoid the implication that Nixon was JFK's VP. I also added Nixon's party and a link. If these changes don't make sense to you, feel free to keep tweaking.
  • Y No, that's fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I added a half-sentence of context on the LTBT; if Seaborg considered a significant accomplishment, it seems worth explaining here. Feel free to change or revise.
  • Y Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "are considered among his most important theoretical contributions" -- this also seems to verge on weasel wording; I'd suggest attributing the judgement in-text, and adding a secondary source assessing this contribution (the citation seems to be directly to his paper)
  • Y re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "When Seaborg resigned as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1971, he had served longer than any other Kennedy appointee" -- can a secondary source be found for this instead of Seaborg himself?
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Seaborg's technique would have been far too expensive to enable routine manufacturing of gold, but his work is the closest to the mythical Philosopher's Stone" -- this assessment again seems to need a secondary source
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Upon seeing the final draft report, Seaborg is credited with making comments that it was far too weak and did not communicate the urgency of the current crisis. " -- is there a source for this?
  • Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• " stated that we are "a nation at risk."" -- this sentence should have its own inline citation attributing this quotation--the citation at the end of the paragraph doesn't attribute these words to him directly, only this title to his committee
  • YRe-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "These comments led to a new introduction to the report and gave the report the famous title which focused national attention on education as an issue germane to the federal government" -- this assessment ("famous title which focused national attention") needs a source
  • YRe-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/Glen_Barton_Theodore_Seaborg.pdf can be considered a reliable source, as it seems unlikely to have editorial oversight and states that its references include numerous unnamed Internet sites
  • Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Marquis Who's Who in America" should probably be formatted "Marquis Who's Who in America", since it's a book.
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "This experimental achievement changed the course of human history in ways more profound than they could have ever imagined" Sorry for placing this one out of order, but checking the source, I'm not sure I see this assessment. The prose seems a bit more flowery than needed for an encyclopedia in any case. What do you think?
  • Y Deleted per WP:PEACOCK Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Khazar2 (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses; that covers a lot of my concerns. Some of the above, though, appears to me to still need work.

• While the Vigyan Prasar source itself has been deleted, a lot of its claims remain in the article without attribution. All of the following appears to need sourcing:
  • "During his lifetime, Seaborg is said to have been the author or co-author of more than 50 books and 500 scientific journal articles, many of them brief reports on fast-breaking discoveries in nuclear science while other subjects, most notably the actinide concept, represented major theoretical contributions in the history of science. He held more than 40 patents – among them the only patents ever issued for chemical elements, americium and curium. He is also said to have received more than 50 degrees and honorary degrees in his lifetime. " (I'd also like to rewrite the "is said", "is said" here to say who says this.)
    • "Y It is said" sounds weasily to me. Re-worded. Added a reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While it has been commonly stated that seaborgium is the only element to have been named after a living person, but this is not entirely accurate, for both einsteinium and fermium were proposed as names of new elements discovered by Ghiorso while Enrico Fermi and Albert Einstein were still living. However, the discovery of these elements and their names were kept secret under Cold War-era nuclear secrecy rules, so the names were not known by the public or the broader scientific community until after their deaths. Thus seaborgium is the only element to have been publicly named after a living person"
    • Y added another reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This seems like a little bit of WP:SYNTH here still. First, Ghiorso doesn't quite make the timeline clear in the given source--he seems to say they picked names only after the elements were declassified, right around the deaths of Fermi and Einstein. Second, neither of the sources connect the two situations. This may seem fussy, but lots of sources call Seaborgium the only element named after a living person (e.g. Sam Kean's The Disappearing Spoon, which has 3-4 amusing pages on the long controversy over the name); if we're going to contradict conventional wisdom, I want to have at least one source that clearly says that's not quite true. (Interestingly, this book makes the same case, but with Samarium, and it's a bit roundabout.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not write that piece, and I'm not sure that I agree. It just seems so much more likely that the decision was made to honour two scientists who had recently died and were therefore in the news. I've looked through the now-declassified documents, and they all say "Element-99" and "element-100". Removed the claim, leaving the statement which I can source, and which is true regardless, as I think the naming should refer to the official one, not the proposal. I understand that nowadays it takes years and years to get a new name adopted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Seaborg resigned as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1971, he had served longer than any other Kennedy appointee." -- this doesn't appear to be sourced by the citation you added. The closest I can find in it is a sentence stating " In that capacity he served until his appointment by President Kennedy to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1961, when he was designated Chairman of the Commission. His term of office expires in 1968." Could you point me to the section you're looking at here?
    • Y added a reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to be a stickler, but this is the exact same reference I asked you to take out of this spot in the first round of comments. Ideally, I'd still like to have a secondary source that says that he lasted longer than any other Kennedy appointee. If no such source can be found, let's make it clear in-text as well as in the citation that this is based on Seaborg's own statement. I don't mind a primary source for minor claims, but I think it's better to go to secondary sources for accomplishments. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He compared the crisis in education to the arms race. These comments led to a new introduction to the report and gave the report the famous title, "A Nation at Risk"," -- I'd still like to see a citation for this evaluation of his influence and the fame of the title.
    • Y added a reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source you added for "his work is the closest to the mythical Philosopher's Stone" doesn't say it this strongly, and is heavy with disclaimers (quote below). Can a more solid source for this evaluation be found?

"Even so, determining who first performed the philosopher's stone experiment is surprisingly difficult. As far as I can tell, it wasn't achieved until 1980 - and it took the skill of the doyen of nuclear chemists, Glenn Seaborg, the Nobel Prize-winning American, to achieve the long-sought transformation. Perhaps readers can supply further details of this mysterious experiment? Seaborg may not have been the first to witness the alchemical transformation, however. It is said that, in 1972, Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility in Siberia opened up the lead shielding of their experimental reactor - and were stunned to discover that its inner surface had turned into gold."

• • • • The article doesn't make any claim that Seaborg was first. Re-worded to "his work was close to the mythical Philosopher's Stone". All it means is that he was able to create gold from another element. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, I understand. It's just that the source doesn't seem very certain and doesn't say he was the closest. Your reworking is fine with me, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Great, I think that covers all my concerns. Let me do a few last checks for things like image tags and we should be set here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I made one change to the lead to reflect a change you made to the body; feel free to further change if you have a preferred phrasing.
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.
	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.	Pass as GA