This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
I was a bit surprised to see this bio of my late father on Wikipedia as his name is much more obscure now than it was in his heyday. I was also surprised to see a glaring, though minor, error at the end of the article. Even though the opening parenthetical dates of birth and death, as well as those in the sidebar, are correct the penultimate paragraph (just prior to the one sentence last paragraph describing his burial) mysteriously has his date of death as September 15, 1994 which is a full seven months after his actual date of death. Curious.
I would also like to point out an important omission in the description of his wartime assignments at Los Alamos. All that is mentioned in the article is that he was Group Leader of the Target, Projectile and Source Group (Group E-4, June 1943 - August 1944.) While that is true of the initial organization of the Laboratory the important omission here is that when the Laboratory was reorganized Oppenheimer transferred my father to Robert F. Bacher's Gadget Division where he headed up the Initiator Group (Group G-10, August 1944 - August 1945.) It was that group which succeeded in designing and building the initiator (neutron generator) without which the implosion weapon would not have functioned.
The two organizations of the wartime Los Alamos Laboratory can be seen on an American Institute of Physics webpage at:
Overall looks good. I'm placing the article on hold for 7 days (until 9 August 2013) pending resolution of the following issues:
in the Postwar section, "After the war, Critchfield returned to George Washington University, but left to join Wigner at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory" - when did he leave? Immediately? a few months later? a few years later?
My source says: "After the war Critchfield returned briefly to George Washington University, then left to help Wigner establish Queen's College for Nuclear Knowledge at Oak Ridge." So we know he left Los Alamos in 1946, and left Oak Ridge in 1947. It doesn't give him much time, but we don't know the exact date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I would suggest rephrasing to say "left soon after" or "later left" or else "returned briefly" - I think it helps the flow a little, but up to you. Corvus coronoidestalk 22:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in the Later life section, "By the end of the month, because of questions raised in Congress by California representative Chester E. Holifield, Critchfield withdrew his name from consideration." - what kinds of questions? a little clarification here would improve coverage.
Y This took a bit of digging, but I came up with this: "McElroy hoped that Critchfield would be able to fix the nation's trouble missile program, but Critchfield was reluctant to serve at the director's $19,000 salary. McElroy then offered to let Critchfield serve without pay, with the government paying only his expenses of $15 per day, while allowing Critchfield to continue to draw his Convair salary of around $40,000. Critchfield accepted this offer, but ran into a storm of political and media criticism over the conflict of interest involved in heading an agency that did $4 million worth of business with Convair each year. Critchfield then withdrew his name from consideration." This was kind of interesting actually. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in the Later life section, "At Los Alamos, he became the mentor of a new generation of young scientists." - this sentence seems editorial. It could be deleted, or clarified by listing (and referencing) some of the young scientists in question.
Good work on the article and digging up sources on the things I mentioned in the hold. Pass. Cheers, Corvus coronoidestalk 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few minutes after he started the review, the reviewer made six edits to the article. In view of the requirement that "Anyone who has not contributed significantly to … this article may review it", Is this appropriate?
Some of these edits are substantive. For example, the edit of 15:35, 2 August 2013 incorrectly changes the advisor of Sophie Oleksa from Critchfield to Edward Ney. Deer*lake (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. The edit you link to was an error on my part; I misunderstood the sentence in question and thought that Oleksa was one of Critchfield's students and the sentence was poorly worded. I see that it has been fixed now, and I apologize and will make an effort to avoid such mistakes in the future.
Regarding making edits, I think you'll find the remainder of the edits I made as part of the review process (diff) to be minor. Per GA Review instructions, reviewers are encouraged to make fixes themselves if issues are minor. I like doing this because it saves me from having to point every single out typo/wording issue I come across.
Also, the reviewer in this case is a 'she'. Best, Corvus coronoidestalk 19:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS you have me confused on the edit in question again. Who was Oleksa's advisor? Critchfield, or Ney? I think my edit changed it to Critchfield from Ney, and assumed that you meant that was incorrect, but you have it the other way around in your comment. Corvus coronoidestalk 20:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Charles Critchfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Y This took a bit of digging, but I came up with this: "McElroy hoped that Critchfield would be able to fix the nation's trouble missile program, but Critchfield was reluctant to serve at the director's $19,000 salary. McElroy then offered to let Critchfield serve without pay, with the government paying only his expenses of $15 per day, while allowing Critchfield to continue to draw his Convair salary of around $40,000. Critchfield accepted this offer, but ran into a storm of political and media criticism over the conflict of interest involved in heading an agency that did $4 million worth of business with Convair each year. Critchfield then withdrew his name from consideration." This was kind of interesting actually. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
b(citations to reliable sources): 
