Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Untitled  
1 comment  




2 WikiProject class rating  
1 comment  




3 GA Review  
13 comments  


3.1  Criteria  





3.2  Review  





3.3  Comments and discussion  





3.4  Result  





3.5  Additional notes  







4 Dragon = Godiva device?  
1 comment  













Talk:Frederick Reines




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Good articleFrederick Reines has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know

Afact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 19, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Frederick Reines used an 8,000 ton Cerenkov detector in a salt mine near Cleveland to detect neutrinos from supernova SN1987A (pictured)?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 26, 2018.

Untitled

[edit]

This article is poorly written and needs to be improved, though I'm not particularly eager to tackle the job at the moment. I am, however, removing the following text from the "Early Life" section: "Three other Eagle Scouts, from different troops, became Nobel laureates: Robert Coleman Richardson in physics, and Peter Agre and Dudley R. Herschbach for chemistry." Had these three scientists been in the same troop as Reines the coincidence would merit inclusion in the article. However, because they were in different troops, the sentence is about Eagle Scouts and not about Frederick Reines. It therefore does not belong in this article -- unless we also want to list all the Nobel laureates from New Jersey, NYU, Case Western, UC-Irvine, etc. Those lists don't belong in this article and neither does the Eagle Scout list. The same information is available at List of notable Eagle Scouts.

I agree with you about eliminating that sentence. In fact, I just eliminated it. Cardamon 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will have the review completed quickly as in the very first look, it looks perfect. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Agood article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    Noedit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

[edit]

Result

[edit]

The article passed the GA review to gain a Good Article Status. The article is finely cited with a good coverage and meet all other GA criteria. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  • ^ Either parenthetical referencesorfootnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  • ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  • ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  • ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  • ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
  • Dragon = Godiva device?

    [edit]

    Is the "Dragon" mentioned in this article the same as the Godiva device? — Brianhe (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_Reines&oldid=1205388111"

    Categories: 
    Wikipedia good articles
    Natural sciences good articles
    Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
    GA-Class vital articles
    Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
    Wikipedia vital articles in People
    GA-Class level-5 vital articles
    Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
    GA-Class vital articles in People
    GA-Class biography articles
    GA-Class biography (military) articles
    Low-importance biography (military) articles
    Military biography work group articles
    GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
    Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
    Science and academia work group articles
    WikiProject Biography articles
    GA-Class physics articles
    High-importance physics articles
    GA-Class physics articles of High-importance
    GA-Class physics biographies articles
    Physics biographies articles
    GA-Class Scouting articles
    High-importance Scouting articles
    GA-Class military history articles
    GA-Class North American military history articles
    North American military history task force articles
    GA-Class United States military history articles
    United States military history task force articles
    GA-Class World War II articles
    World War II task force articles
    Hidden categories: 
    Noindexed pages
    Selected anniversaries articles
     



    This page was last edited on 9 February 2024, at 14:55 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki