Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Ignition Facility/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:25, 13 May 2008.

[edit] National Ignition Facility

previous FAC


I am going to re-nominate this article for FA status. It previously failed due to "lack of ref" in October 2006, but this, and a number of minor issues, have been addressed since then. In addition, it has been extensively peer reviewed by staff at the LLNL, who sent me numerous references, new images, corrections, and even comments on formatting and punctuation. I believe it is safe to say, IMHO, that it is the best "single" article on the topic available anywhere, which seems like the very definition of "featured article". Maury (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Some of your references are incomplete. All references should have a publisher, and internet sources should have an accessdate. Try using {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, or others if it makes it easier.-Wafulz (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Are these actual requirements? They do not appear in the FAC, and the cite guide is certainly not specific on this. I'll happily add them if they are a requirement, but otherwise I would rather avoid too much leaf raking. Maury (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Provide full citations says that you need enough information for other editors to identify your source. At a bare minimum, this would mean giving (where possible) an author, a publisher, a title, a URL/doi, and a date/accessdate. This is especially true for any links that are on the internet - if a link dies and all we have is a title and URL, it can be very difficult to trace a mirror or a different source.-Wafulz (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well ok. Access dates are easy enough ("today"), but can you be more specific about the others? IE, what links do you feel do not provide enough detail? Maury (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Done I think, drop a note if I missed any. Maury (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, using the cite family of templates is not a requirement for an FA or for any article, but consistently and correctly formatted citations is a requirement (2c) for FAs. See WP:CITE/ES and WP:WIAFA. All sources need a title and publisher, author and publication date when available, and last access date on websources, dates should be consistently linked and formatted within citations, and the page numbering and author name convention you use should be the same across all citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think I have met these requirements in all of the CITEs now. I went to every single one of them to make sure they worked, added any missing authors, and re-formatted them all to use the same style (authors, title, publication, date, pages, link date). If you find any counterexamples, let me know. Maury (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, what do the lock icons mean on some of the refs? Maury (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The lock icons means it is a "secure" server (https:// "s" for secure). It just means the transmissions of the page are encrypted for security reasons, usually when it involves credit card numbers, although I have no idea why it is used in these cases. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh. I can think of all sorts of jokes about why they have it turned on... Maury (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am concerned about the lack of refs in the "background" section. Generally, I like to see at least one ref per paragraph... even when the information is taken from another wikiarticle, there should be refs provided. You probably could just copy and past the applicable refs from ICF mechanism to make it easier. Also, bold type should not be included anywhere but in the lead section, unless the bold type is a redirect to that section of the article... try using italics for emphasis. Another issue, using italics and quotes to refer to specific words is redundant... stick to one or the other (see Use–mention distinction). Also, instead of a gallery at the end of the article, try incorporating the images into the article itself. There are few images as it is, so condensing them all into a gallery just exacerbates the problem. Otherwise, a good read which I would be glad to support. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I don't understand the bolding. I was under the impression that it should be used on any term that is integral to the article. IE, if talking about a car one would speak of the wheels. Is this not the case? I'll add refs to the other section, I don't believe it needs them but I'm getting tired of everyone asking. Maury (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, that was easy, first hit was the right one! Maury (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeping things on track here :-) The statement above isn't completely correct; see WP:MOSBOLD for correct applications of bold font. Also see WP:ITALICS for correct us of italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if anyone really feels that the single instance of "extra" bolding, which is a proper name BTW and very very much in keeping with common practice, really really requires un-bolding, be my guest. But really, isn't anyone going to comment on the content of the article? Not one vote pro or con yet? Maury (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually common practice is not have bolding anywhere but in the lead, and the few exceptions stated at WP:BOLD. My statement wasn't completely correct, although I was correct by saying these items should not be in bold. I'm also not sure if the simultaneous use of italics and quotes are necessary, but I wont press the issue, no big deal. My remaining concerns...
    • Introduction is too short. It should adequately summarize the article, and not contain any information that isn't already in the article itself. Refs are normally not necessary as the information should be redundant. Read WP:LEAD for more info.
    • Image galleries are discouraged unless necessary. Try incorporating the images into the article, there are few images in the article and they are all grouped in the gallery, it would look better if you spread them around the article and perhaps add them adjacent to relevant text if possible. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images for more info.
    • Units of measure unfamiliar to the average reader should be wikilinked on the first instance, like picoseconds and megajoules.
    • Could use a more thorough copyedit for prose. Phrases such as "far and away" (just "far" will do) and "in order to" (just "to" will do) are unnecessary and redundant. See User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Misplaced_formality for some helpful tips.

Good luck. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Try incorporating the images into the article" During the last round one of the oppose points was that there were too many images in the body and it was suggested I move them to a gallery. So I did. I will look into the units issue.
Hmmm, well I haven't reviewed the history of this article, but as it is now, there are very few images. There are plenty of long stretches of text with no images at all. Everyone has a different opinion but common practice is galleries should only be a last resort for articles with an abundance of relevant images. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: criterion three concerns:
    • Image:NIF building layout.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP; "a LLNL publication" is not sufficent. Which one?
    • Image:Nif hohlraum.jpg and Image:NIF target chamber.jpg need verifiable sources; they currently source to themselves.
    • Image:Laser glass slabs.jpg needs a verifiable source.
    • The aforementioned and most, if not all, other images are sourced from LLNL. The LLNL disclaimer sets forth "LLNL-authored documents including, but not limited to, articles, photographs, drawings, and other information subsisting in text, images, and/or other media, are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes." (emphasis added) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory article sets forth "Until September 30, 2007 LLNL was directly managed and operated solely by the University of California". Given that the images predate 2007 (e.g. Image:Fusion microcapsule.jpg is from 2002), what is the basis for the claim that these images are the work of the federal government? The disclaimer's verbiage of the DOE merely "sponsor[ing]" and holding "nonexclusive" rights seems quite implicate that these are not federal works. Am I misunderstanding the relationship between LLNL and the DOE? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Am I misunderstanding the relationship between LLNL and the DOE? Basically yes. This has been hashed out in great detail in the past in a variety of places. Simply put, the labs all put up language like this somewhere on their pages, but it's just not true. It's like the NFL saying "all rights reserved", which is equally untrue. I should point out that the latest image was sent to me by LLNL specifically for use in the article, so for what it's worth... As to the sources, I have added them all. Maury (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide links/diffs for this hashing out? I somehow doubt LLNL's attorneys would be so quick to dismiss the truthfulness of that disclaimer. The underlying question remains unanswered: is LLNL (the author of these images) actually a federal government entity? Federal sponsorship does not a federal entity make. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Try as I might I can no longer find the thread in question, it was two years ago and not directly related. However, I took the time to write to the LLNL and their lawyers are now on it.
But while I'm here, I need to express my disagreement with the claim "underlying question remains unanswered: is LLNL (the author of these images) actually a federal government entity". That's not the underlying question at all. The underlying question is whether or not the images can be used on the Wiki. All else is academic. Maury (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The images are being claimed as public domain on the basis that they are works of the United States Federal Government. No evidence has been provided that this is the case and, in fact, licensing at the source implicitly contradicts the claim. If LLNL indeed sent you an image to use in this article, forward to OTRS and re-license as needed (e.g. CC, GFDL, or {{PD-author}}). Licensing {{PD-USGov}} is not verifiable or supported. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wait. I am in contact with LLNL and we are trying to get the matter resolved. They're lawyers, I assume this will not be immediate. Maury (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE:

"We are most definitely a US Government website. Just check the URL for the .gov suffix. At the bottom of each page, you see the following text: Operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration"

This statement was sent to me by my primary contact at LLNL. Do you require more, or does this satisfy you? Maury (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add more anyway: "The rule I learned long ago from our legal staff when I was a TV news reporter is that anything on a US Government website is public domain when used in a news context. And certainly, an article on Wikipedia qualifies in that regard." Same person, employee of LLNL, completely credible, primary contact for this project. Maury (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another update: Ok, well now I've had another e-mail from LLNL that states the exact opposite! I do consider this one to be less authoritative though, it's the "person that answers e-mail" sent to the lab, whereas the quotes above are from a primary source in the NIF project itself. I think it's safe to say, sadly, that it's still up in the air. There's more than a little irony here: does anyone else see the potentially amusing side of this given that they make nuclear bombs? BTW, is there any reason these can't be Free Use? Both of the people in question have stated they are usable under those conditions. I'd rather not use this, but I think the article really suffers without the images. Maury (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the irony is that copyrights and licensing are more complex than nuclear physics. Physics was my Nebenfach (don't know the English equivalent) as an undergrad, and I find myself dearly missing laws that aren't open to interpretation, but I digress. The issue isn't really with the images themselves (i.e. as compilations of pixels). The concern, rather, is only that Wikipedia - and especially featured articles - shouldn't be representing images as being in the public domain without at least a preponderance of evidence to support the claim.
Here's the problem with the email from the more credible contact: "We are most definitely a US Government website" doesn't help us, as the statement we really need from them is "we are most definitely a US federal government entity". The .gov suffix is troublesome, as it indicates only a host, not an author (z.B. university students get .edu space, but the material they post thereon isn't necessarily authored by the university. More pertinently, U.S. senators get .gov pages on which they may, similarly, post material not necessarily authored by the federal government). All that needs to be established is that the author of the images (LLNL) is a federal government entity. If the contact could confirm this, that would resolve the issue.
I suspect the “rule” they quote to be a misunderstanding of Fair Use law. Copyrighted images may indeed be used for educational purposes (such as news) without violating copyright, but that is distinct from entering public domain (an image cannot be public domain for one use and protected for “other” uses – once PD, always PD).
OTRS wouldbe useful if your contact has authority to speak for LLNL. Then they, as the “author” could state/confirm that they release the images to the public domain (or GFDL, CC, etc) and the licenses could be updated accordingly. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It is unlikely he is in a position to do so. Having been through this process before with UCalBerk and Argonne, I can say without too much hesitation that it is unlikely there is anyone in the DoE or LLNL that will go on record. We have no heard back from the lawyers though, so I think we should give that another day or so.
But given the chance that this is not PDGov in the end, what then? Can I fair-use them? Maury (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, it is a good start but there are too many immediate issues to warrant close examination for FA status right now. Most of them have existed since the article lost GA status. I will list the major issues:
    • The diagrams are poorly-used. Rather than attempting to describe the diagram in the caption (On left is this.. this is shown in blue..) You need to add call-outs and make it a useful diagram. I note this has been an issue since last year.
    • The lead is entirely inadequate. I see this was a concern that even got the article de-listed at GA, and it has not been addressed.
    • The prose is unpolished and need a serious copyedit. Problems are easily-spotted, even in the scant lead: "... NIF is five years behind schedule and almost four times over budget."
    • MoS problems (ex: 500 terawatt should be hyphenated or use a non-breaking space)
    • References are malformed or incorrect.. another problem that's been around since losing GA status. --Laser brain (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well these are all new to me. The only thing I recall about the captions was that they were too long, when I asked for ways to improve them I received no concrete response. The prose example you give I don't understand, perhaps I'm just dumb but it reads fine to me. I have re-written every single reference, if you have specific examples of "malformed or incorrect" ones I'll happily fix them. Maury (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There are various MOS issues, the prose ranges from non-encyclopedic to overly-jargony, and there are still serious citation issues. I think the article shows promise in its comprehensiveness, but it needs a great deal of work still to be ready for FA.

  • This needs to have an encyclopedic tone. Some phrasing is not up to that standard (for example: "NIF is far and away the largest...", "The basic idea behind any ")
  • "Construction of the NIF is currently estimated to be completed in 2009 " - replace currently with a concrete date as we don't know when this estimate was made
  • I concur with the other reviewers - the lead needs to be expanded to more adequately summarize the article
  • What does this mean "which are amplified 4-each'"
  • This claim must have a citation "This number is far and away beyond the number and size of beams of any preceding ICF laser." (and it needs to be rewritten)
    • Note, this is not referring to the claim in the lead, but to the corresponding claim in the body of the article. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Need a citation for "Improvements to the design since then have allowed them to surpass their initial design "
  • "According to LLN" - Who/What is LLNL? I don't think that has been defined in the article body before it is used
    • Note, although this is marked fixed below, it doesn't appear to have changed.
  • Is there a cite for this? "Given the time scale of a few billionths of a second, the power is correspondingly very high (500 terawatts)."
  • Need a citation for "The conversion process is about 50% efficient, reducing delivered energy to a nominal 1.8 MJ (500 terawatts)."
  • I didn't completely follow a lot of what is in the laser section. I am not that familiar with lasers and many of the terms used here - it sounded like jargon to me. I have no idea whether it will be possible to rewrite it accurately into terms a layman will understand though.
  • Headings shouldn't begin with "The"
  • Any citations for this data (especially the numbers): the case of the NIF, the large delivered power allows for the use of a much larger target; the baseline pellet design is about 2 mm in diameter, chilled to about 18 degrees above absolute zero and lined with a layer of solid deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel. The hollow interior also contains a small amount of DT gas.
  • I think WP:ITALICS has been violated in the article.
    • Not fixed - still at least two instances of words italicized that shouldn't be. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Need citation for "Fusion gains in this configuration are estimated to be anywhere between ten and thirty times; less than the symmetrical direct-drive approach, but obtainable with no changes to the NIF beamline layout"
  • Need citation for "producing results almost as good as the fully symmetric direct drive approach"
  • Need citation for "at the time it was just beyond the state of the art"
  • Need citation for "In operation, Nova was able to deliver about 20 to 30 kJ of laser energy, about half of what was initially expected, due to various nonlinear optical effects."
  • Need a citation for "The initial estimates from 1992 estimated construction costs around $400 million, with construction taking place from 1995 to 1999"
  • I also agree that the gallery should be eliminated, with the pictures spread throughout the article.
  • Reference 44 (Nuclear testing gear in doubt ) is not formatted properly. This reference appears to be a blog, which would fail WP:RS.
    • Thank you for putting in the publisher. This is a blog though, which fails WP:RS. You need to find a new source. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Some references do not have publisher information (ref 45- New Cost and Schedule Estimates for National Ignition Facility. )

Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Progress report I would like to collect the comments above, although others have told me two opposes means it's basically over.

Completed

  • Units of measure unfamiliar to the average reader should be wikilinked on the first instance, like picoseconds and megajoules.
  • Phrases such as "far and away" (just "far" will do) and "in order to" (just "to" will do) are unnecessary
  • What does this mean "which are amplified 4-each'"
  • MoS problems (ex: 500 terawatt should be hyphenated or use a non-breaking space)
  • (for example: "NIF is far and away the largest...", "The basic idea behind any ")
  • According to LLN" - Who/What is LLNL?
  • replace currently with a concrete date
  • Need a citation for "Improvements to the design since then have allowed them to surpass their initial design ", Moved existing cite one line.
  • Need a citation for "The conversion process is about 50% efficient, reducing delivered energy to a nominal 1.8 MJ (500 terawatts)." Moved existing cite one line.
  • I think WP:ITALICS has been violated in the article.
  • Reference 44 (Nuclear testing gear in doubt ) is not formatted properly. This reference appears to be a blog, which would fail WP:RS.
  • Some references do not have publisher information (ref 45- New Cost and Schedule Estimates for National Ignition Facility. )

Require Clarification

  • Headings shouldn't begin with "The" "laser" doesn't seem right. NIF laser? Driver? Something else?
  • Introduction is too short. What information is missing that you think the introduction is missing? I'd like to fix this ASAP. Contrary to the second instance of this, the LEAD has undergone major edits in the near past in order to address former problems.
  • I didn't completely follow a lot of what is in the laser section. I am not that familiar with lasers Ok, sooooo, what do we do?
  • Is there a cite for this? "Given the time scale of a few billionths of a second, the power is correspondingly very high (500 terawatts)." P = E x t. I do not believe this requires a cite.

Disagree

  • Need citation for "Fusion gains in this configuration are estimated to be anywhere between ten and thirty times; less than the symmetrical direct-drive approach, but obtainable with no changes to the NIF beamline layout"
  • Need citation for "producing results almost as good as the fully symmetric direct drive approach"
  • Need citation for "at the time it was just beyond the state of the art"
  • Need citation for "In operation, Nova was able to deliver about 20 to 30 kJ of laser energy, about half of what was initially expected, due to various nonlinear optical effects."
  • Need a citation for "The initial estimates from 1992 estimated construction costs around $400 million, with construction taking place from 1995 to 1999"
  • Need citation for "producing results almost as good as the fully symmetric direct drive approach"

All of these are clearly cited in-place. The link appear before the specific sentence, but only in cases where that claim is "more important" to have the ref physically close to it. I see no need to insert the same reference multiple times in a single paragraph.

Can't satisfy everyone

  • I also agree that the gallery should be eliminated, with the pictures spread throughout the article.
  • Image galleries are discouraged unless necessary.

I have read over all relevant materials in the MOS and the links above, and simply put, the second of these statements is not true. The section on galleries clearly states there is no agreed-on policy. But if we confine ourselves to the specific case here, as I mentioned before, the gallery was introduced specifically because the former FA (or GA, I don't recall) said there were too many images in the body and they should be put in a gallery. I fear that if I change this, someone else will "strongly oppose" it for that reason. What am I to do?

  • This number is far and away beyond the number and size of beams of any preceding ICF laser

Above a reviewer states that there should be no references in the lead. I agree, I hate references in the lead when the explanation follows shortly - as is the case here. So if I move the HOW reference (which does state this, directly) into the LEAD, then I'm violating a different complaint.

  • the prose ranges from non-encyclopedic to overly-jargony
  • The prose is unpolished and need a serious copyedit.

I quote the very first review (as opposed to comment) from the former FA, "The prose in the article is very good. I really appreciate how the text is readable by the layman, but also contains enough information to keep people with more knowledge reading on." So again, this appears to come down to a disagreement about reviewers. What can I do to make everyone happy? When I get specific examples I change them, but I keep getting vague "needs edit", which is really not helpful at all. Is there some sort of objective measure we can apply here?

I believe this covers every remaining point above, with the exception of the licensing question, which is ongoing. If I have missed any, please add.

Please note that the previous FA nom was in October 2006, 18 months ago. There is a possibility that the article has changed, that interpretation of the criteria has gotten stricter, or that the previous reviewer wasn't great at identifying good prose. I'd recommend that you look through the list of science FAs, find a recent one that looks well-written and ask the person who wrote it to copyedit this one. (Regardless, an 18-month old FAC nom doesn't really tell you anything about community consensus or the state of the article as it is today.)
As for my comments about not understanding, I think that has a lot to do with the jargon. Removing or explaining some of that more fully will help increase the understanding of lay reviewers.
As for citations, if you are citing statistics or something that is opinion, the citation needs to go after the statement, not before. That's standard practice for inline citations; otherwise, how on earth do you know that the statement goes with that citation? If you are going to use inline citations (as is now required for FA status), please use them correctly.

Karanacs (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to focus just on the last point to start. The citations in question (outlined above) are part of single paragraphs on a single topic. For instance, the PDD targets paragraph; there is a single reference that covers all of the points within. Perhaps I am confused as to what the problem is? Maury (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting: ok so after some poking about I came across this (lengthy!) thread at the end of a paragraph Citations at the end of a paragraph which is discussing this precise issue. The outcome? A long argument with no apparent conclusion. :-( Maury (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While I sympathize with your plight, Karanacs brings up a good point. The last FAC was 18 months ago, standards may have changed. It is standard practice to not use galleries unless necessary. If you'll look at other nominations you will get an idea of what is the current consensus. Also, reading WP:MOS and tips listed at WP:FA? and User:Jengod/Some_common_objections_to_featured_status_and_how_to_avoid_them. BTW, I still count about 8 "in order to" phrases. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I don't mind, if you think they'll fit inline I'd much rather have that -- it's not like I like galleries! The article has grown in length (although not a huge amount) so that does seem like there's more room to play with. Maury (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • When using abbreviations in the footnotes, (such as LLNL) it's helfpul to do something like Lawrence Livermore National Library (LLNL) at the first usage of the abbreviation. I'd actually perfer that all abbreviations in the references were spelled out since most folks don't read them all, just pick and choose and it's harder to figure out what is meant if you have to scan up and down the references list trying to figure out what an unfamiliar abbreviation is.
  • Can we be consistent in the formatting of the journal references? Some of the journal names are italicised, others aren't. One or the other would help folks figure out the references a bit easier.
  • Current ref 31 "letter from Charles Curtis, Undersecretary of Energy" is this a published reference? WP:RS frowns on unpublished sources.
  • Current ref 32, I have no idea what this means. Is this a federal code reference or to something else published?
  • Current ref 35 "Natural Resources Defense council..." is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 37 "C. W. Cranfill "Concerns about NIF..." is this a published memo? See about about unpublished sources and Wikipedia.
  • Current ref 48 "Science Scope, 288 (5471)..." Is this a journal article? If so, we should cite the author and title.
  • Current ref 54 "A. Fitzpatrick, I Oelrich "The Stockpile Stewardship..." is lacking a publisher
Being on the road, I didnt check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys was off for most of the weekend and I'm just getting started again now. Is there anything immediate? I'll start reading the diffs... Maury (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, working on the above. Ok, some progress...

  • fixed abbrs, including S&TR, tell me if there's any others (FAS maybe?)
  • geez, it seems they have been undergoing some edits. I'll see if I can clean them up again.
  • Current ref 32 -- weird, fixed and clarified
  • Current ref 35 -- is there a standard for quoting a court document? Like a docket number or something? "Civil Action No. 00-2431" appears to be the call for this, and there was an amendment to it as well, although it's Abraham in that case, who took the place of Richarson.
  • Current ref 48 -- got it
  • Current ref 54 -- fixed
  • Current ref 37 -- this is currently outstanding. I've seen it, but I don't recall if it was journal published. It's attached to point that I'm more than willing to lose from the article if I don't find it.

Maury (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm playing with the images to get rid of the gallery, but it looks like the only way to make it work is lose half of them. Maury (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose by Dweller

I'm still unfamiliar with the history of this article, but it seems like it could do with a rigorous Peer Review. The prose in particular needs significant work; it looks/reads like a labour of love by experts that confounds the layman. We don't want it dumbed down, but it must be accessible. Sorry to oppose, but FAC isn't the place for help with a reworking; articles here should need a tweak or perhaps a generous helping hand. This is simply too needy.

Looking at the Lead alone, I found the following issues, some of which are major problems:

  • I'm confused. Is this thing being built, or is it built? Lead says it's under construction, but then deals with how it works in present tense, instead of future.
  • If no-one's ever been able to get to ignition, it's a bit presumptuous to assume this will succeed. Tone down "NIF uses powerful lasers to heat and compress a small amount of hydrogen fuel to the point where nuclear fusion reactions take place." to allow for the possibility it won't ever work
  • Typo - "budgetted"
  • I can't work out when the construction began. Note the date in the Lead.
  • "Progress since the mid-2000s has been much smoother." Smoother than what?
  • The caption is massive... and very confusing. Could the room be labelled? I couldn't see anything purple. There's two different elements that have been coloured blue, so I don't know which is which. Can't see a silver colour either. Why not pick distinctive colours and judiciously apply some labels?
  • Expand slightly the controversy over the potential nuclear weapons usage.

Sorry again. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, close the FA. Oh well. I have to say it's refreshing to see people actually discuss the content. Maury (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can continue to improve the article along the suggestions implemented here, please do so. It's not far off, so it doesn't need to be closed unless you can't work on the article for a while. - Taxman Talk 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the comments above it seems there is a lot more wrong than just crossing the T's. Comments like "prose in particular needs significant work" (or similar from three different reviewers) suggest that I am simply not seeing the forest for the trees. Maury (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't please everybody but use the comments here to make as many improvements as you can. You may be able to satisfy enough, and if not, at least it will be in a better state before it's over. Then retrying will be easier. Don't lose sight of the fact that you have done great work. The issues raised are relatively minor in relation to the difficult work you've already done. - Taxman Talk 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.