Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/James Chadwick

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allecher (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

James Chadwick

edit
(
)

Sir James Chadwick

5x expanded by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self nominated at 10:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC).

  • I am starting a review of this. It may take some time because the topic is a substantial one. The first thing I have to do is calculate the 5x expansion, which isn't obvious. Warden (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The 5x expansion checks out. I use Word for this and FYI it says the prose is now:
7 pages; 55 paragraphs; 270 lines; 3602 words; 18886 non-space characters
The latter number is more than 5 times the value before, which was 3655. Now to read it all... Warden (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have made a start but need to take a break now. If I notice a typo or other infelicity, as I did just now, I shall make a correction in line for convenience. If the issue seems controversial or mistaken then please feel free to correct me in turn.
On a personal note, I grew up near Chadwick's birthplace and also went to Cambridge, so perhaps this will help me in checking the facts. I also plan to compare the article with Britannica's equivalent.
Warden (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The facts check out. The Britannica entry isn't much help but the DNB has a good article which we should draw from. My main concern now is the hook. The current hook seems rather dull, just stating the main claim to fame in an unsurprising way. Perhaps we can do better and I'll suggest a couple of ALTs for comparison. The article would need enhancing to support these but that's fairly straight-forward. I'll record this as a query for now to give some time for discussion. Warden (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I've struck ALT1 as it is not in the article, and ALT2 as it is untrue, as explained in the article. You don't need to review the article for DYK; just verify the items on the DYK checklist. However, I have nominated it for GA, so you can review it there if you like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you may be overestimating the number of people that have heard of him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree that few will know about the subject. I have added more details to the article to support the ALT hooks and have expanded the first one to provide more context, as you suggest. As I am now involved in developing the article, I leave it to some other reviewer to choose between the hooks. Likewise, I will expand the article in my copious free time, rather than do the GA review. Warden (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
        • New reviewer required. And ALT2 is still completely untrue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
          • The DNB entry says "He rapidly gained the confidence of General Groves, who was in charge of the joint effort, and became the only man apart from Groves and his second in command to have access to all the American research and production facilities." So, my impression is that this is a matter of timing — his access was restricted initially but then increased. Warden (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Untrue Chadwick had no access to the Hanford site. Lord Portal was offered was offered a tour of Hanford in 1946. "This was the only plant to which Chadwick had been denied access in wartime, and now he asked Groves if he could accompany Portal. Groves replied that he could, but if he did then 'Portal will not see very much'." (Brown, p. 317). Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
ALT2 is not as interesting as ALT1, because toothpaste and the Nobel Prize are much better known to your average reader than the Manhattan Project. I'm therefore approving ALT1.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 06:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT2 is untrue, and ALT1 is deceptive, as he did not get the Nobel Prize for that work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Although 'subsequent' does not express a causal relationship, I can see where you're going with 'deceptive'. So what about this hook?
  • ALT3... that Nobel Prize winner James Chadwick (pictured) experimented with radioactive toothpaste during World War I?

Thanks! We need someone to verify this (or provide additional concerns, if that is due), and then we're good to go!—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 11:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Nice article. 5x expansion checks out, etc. The residual issues in this review had to do with the hooks:
  • The original hook is fine, albeit a bit pedestrian.
  • ALT1 is supported by the article and cited sources, but it's annoyingly misleading. The radioactive toothpaste anecdote is not as trivial as this hook makes it sound. In context, I think it illustrates Chadwick's character and his devotion to science,
  • ALT2 is not valid; I'm striking it out.
  • ALT3 is supported by the article and cited sources, but I don't much like it because it seems to trivialize Chadwick's accomplishments. I propose (and approve) a minor rewording of the original hook and ALT3, as follows:
  • ALT4 was not a newly proposed hook. I merely combined and revised some wording from two other hooks. That's entirely acceptable. --Orlady (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • ALT4 is fine by me too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/James_Chadwick&oldid=829067583"