Talk:Three Mile Island (book)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Three Mile Island (book) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. | |
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within energy. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Btmi3.jpg
Image:Btmi3.jpg 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) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA review
Hi Johnfos, For the GA review, I'd like to suggest the following:
- Can you add something about critical reception to the lead? One sentence would be fine.
- Can you provide a bit of background about the TMI accident itself for the reader, perhaps in the "Introduction" section? No more than a paragraph is all I'd ask.
- Fix the fair use rationale for the image.
- In the second quote, I'm wondering if there is a typo. Does the source read "and his discussion of the aftermath provide thoughtful" or "and his discussion of the aftermath provides thoughtful"?
(I did some copyediting which I hope is agreeable.) –Outriggr § 08:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Outriggr, for reviewing and copyediting. I plan to make the suggested improvements over the next couple of days... Johnfos (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Johnfos. When I mentioned "background", I was hoping for more of an overview of the accident--the impact it had on people. I could try to add something (just from the main article on the subject) if you want. I feel the article is a little short, but then it's a very specific topic... is there one more example of favorable or unfavorable review you could add? Also, I'm not sure the section on Author should stay because it's just a few sentences. Could it be combined with Introduction? I do apologize for coming back with more comments. –Outriggr § 01:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hi Outriggr. I've expanded the article a little in line with one of your comments, but I honestly don't feel that the article is too short. There are quite a few GAs which are shorter; Revopower is the classic example that comes to mind. And I would prefer that the author section stay separate as I think it would be confusing to do otherwise. I would be grateful if you, and any other editors, would add more to the article where you see fit... thanks, Johnfos (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fact?
"First detailed historical analysis since the accident..."
I don't think that's factual. "The Warning" by Mike Gray and Ira Rosen was probably the first such work and is probably the definitive one. Since the source for this is a book review, it's probably just due to a misinformed reviewer.
Scott Johnson (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
