Talk:United States v. Progressive, Inc./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I will be reviewing this article, will kick off shortly. Sorry it has been in the cooler so long... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I've done a c/e, feel free to revert as necessary suggest you should name the judge in the lead suggest "submit to" or "obtain" security clearances in the lead. You used something similar in the body "there is no secret to be kept", is this a quote? It reads like one. Otherwise, I suggest the prose needs attention there. "If there was no secret, then there was no reason for security." This feels like it should be a quote, cited in-line or be attributed. Who was/is Helen Gahagan Douglas? It isn't clear what she was defending, the original section, or the amended one? suggest you link Pit (nuclear weapon) and Nuclear_weapon_design#Pure_fission_weapons "The Polish mathematician Stanislaw Ulam, his wife Francoise Ulam, and their collaborator Cornelius Everett". What did Mrs Ulam and Everett do? Should they be redlinked? "As early as 1948, the House Un-American Activities Committee had construed "atomic secrets" as mystical formulae that could be written down". It is not clear why this has been included here, except to introduce HUAC, could you look at it again? Who are Fred Graham, John Mitchell, Alexander Bickel and Daniel Ellsberg? ie are they editors, journalists, politicians etc *When you introduce Chuck Hansen, you should briefly say what he was then expand in the following para.OK.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	OK.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	OK.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~Just have a couple of quote-related queries against 1a above, otherwise it's sweet.~~ OK.
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	OK.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	OK.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	OK.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	OK.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed. A really interesting article on a topic I haven't really read much about. My sincere apologies for the cluster with the MILHIST Announcements template, which probably contributed to this article being unreviewed for so long. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who was/is Helen Gahagan Douglas? One of the most famous women in American history. We could be here all week. I'll probably take her bio article to featured. Added a bit.

Thanks. My son lives for US politics, I'll get him to fill me in. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Ulam do? She was their calculator. It was normal for wives to work in Los Alamos, as there wasn't much else to do, and it was convenient for married couples to have the same security clearance. Added a bit.

Copy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

they certainly have, well done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]