Talk:Nuclear fuel response to reactor accidents
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
Contents |
[edit] Grand Unified Article
I see my LOFT stublet has got subsumed into a larger article. I have to say that I personally find that these multi-faceted WP articles are rarely completely successful It's difficult in a multi-author setup to keep a consistency of viewpoint - the whole is less than the sum of its parts - and in wikified environment little is lost and much gained in clarity (IMHO) and maintainability in keeping the bits separate but linked. Just my Drei Groschen :-) Bob aka Linuxlad 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- In that case what about the idea of moving LOFT back to a page where it would be with PHEBUS ? The PHEBUS tests are a more modern set of experiments where fuel degradation has been studied.Cadmium
Well, let's run with it as it is now, and see what gets added. As I've commented to you on my talk page, LOFT changed direction several times (IIRC), and so quite possibly produced less good data than PHEBUS. But historically it was important - though built as the intended closure to the 'Appendix K' uncertainties, it became the first of the 'big money' 'integral effects tests'. Linuxlad
[edit] Renaming
No wonder I never looked at this page! (Great page, by the way!) I'll change the title to be more descriptive, and then go change all the wikilinks. Simesa 22:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RIA etc
I think it will be easier to tell this tale if WPs boiling heat transfer articles were sort-of tidied upabit too. I've started hacking, but there may well be better source material already (eg the CHF article goes beyond its title at present). Bob aka Linuxlad 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FPT1fueltestPhebus.png
Image:FPT1fueltestPhebus.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
