Talk:Hilde Levi

	Hilde Levi has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 24, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 5, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hilde Levi helped develop the radiocarbon dating equipment used to date the Grauballe Man?
	A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 9, 2017.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Physics: Biographies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hilde Levi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:12, 22 March 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.	OK
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All 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, though it does rely on rather few sources.
	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).	OK
	2c. it contains no original research.	No sign of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It does, but perhaps there should be a little more on how she found out about radiocarbon dating, and about autoradiography; and indeed what she did in induced radioactivity - I think an extra sentence on each would be helpful. This could mean additional sources. Added a bit about where she learned about these new techniques. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks.
	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.	No problem.
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.	The photographer for Levi's portrait is unknown so the image is incorrectly tagged, should probably be Anonymous-EU which only requires 50 years so apparently valid here. Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Obviously it would be nice to have another image (Levi in Bohr's lab, etc) if any such exist.
	7. Overall assessment.	An interesting and crisply-written article.

Photographs

• We could take this one. It is from before WWII, so the copyright has expired. But it's not very good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but no, it's not very good. Not to worry, it's not a showstopper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]