Talk:SEFOR/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: H2so4aq (talk · contribs) 01:09, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RadioactOlive (talk · contribs) 02:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for submitting the article; getting started on the review. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 02:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

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, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):

   The locations in the first sentence seem a bit much - its in Cove Creek, its near Strickler, its southwest of Fayetteville. It might be good to condense this a bit.

   The design section could likely be made a little more understandable. While Doppler broadening is a little complex, the basic idea that PNTC means the reactor reacts less as it gets hotter is fairly accessible and should likely be explained in the first paragraph, per WP:MTAU radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 00:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

   Likewise, explaining what a "harder" or "softer" neutron spectrum means might be useful. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 00:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

    Done Added an explanatory footnote next to the term "softened". H2so4aq (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

    Done for both issues. Revised lead and moved around Doppler broadening description to the first paragraph in Design. Also added detail to explain the temperature coefficient just before explaining the Doppler effect. H2so4aq (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I don't see verification for it producing heat but no power in the source - if you could point me to where that is contained in source 5, or find another source for it, that would be good. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 00:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

    Done I added source 1, Fast Reactor Development in the United States, which states: SEFOR did not produce electricity. H2so4aq (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):

   Images are good - if one other than the postcard exists (and is appropriately licensed) of it during its operation, that would be preferable, but of course there may not be one. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 02:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Issue for hold

I'm placing the review on hold for you to deal with the small issues above. Specifically, I need to see a source for it producing heat but not power, and I'd like to see some more explanation of the relevant information about PNTC, neutron spectra, and Doppler broadening. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 02:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@RadioactOlive I believe I've addressed the issues you've identified, please take another look and let me know if they are fixed. H2so4aq (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Give me just a moment to promote it to GA. Congrats on the GA! radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 04:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! H2so4aq (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)