Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2aa25329fee70b8

Jump to content

Talk:Nuclear power/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Ita140188 in topic GA Review

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I will be reviewing this article soon. Expect comments in the next few days. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

General comments

[edit]
  • This should not be in the lead: "This article mostly deals with nuclear fission power for electricity generation."
 Done
  • No citations in lead, which is good because all of the information is in the article
Yes, this was intentional. All information in the lead is present in more detail and referenced in the article body. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • In the history section, I recommend moving the france graph to the gallery.
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • "Life cycle of nuclear fuel" section is not sourced.
 Done rewrote partially and added sources --Ita140188 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • It might be useful to have a short summary on nuclear waste in its section (before going into the specific types), although not required
 Done I tried to give a brief intro. Let me know if it is enough. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • "Nuclear decommissioning" is also unsourced.
 Done rewrote and added sources --Ita140188 (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • "Use in space" is unsourced.
 Done rewrote partially and added source --Ita140188 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • All images are properly licenced.
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Discussion

[edit]
@JackFromReedsburg: Thank you! I will address the comments in the coming days. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@JackFromReedsburg: I tried to address all the comments. Please let me know if there are any other areas that can be improved. Thanks! --Ita140188 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Ita140188: Thank you for fixing the issues. I don't see anything preventing this from becoming a GA, so I will be promoting it. (I changed my name, so hopefully the bots don't get annoyed) JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@JackFromWisconsin: Great! Thank you for the review! --Ita140188 (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply