Talk:ZETA (fusion reactor)

	ZETA (fusion reactor) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 25, 2019.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 9, 2011 Peer review Reviewed July 29, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed October 5, 2017 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 20, 2018 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 17, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in May 1958, eight months after John Cockroft had announced with great fanfare that the British-designed ZETA device (pictured) had achieved nuclear fusion, he was forced to retract this claim? Current status: Featured article

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

‹See TfM› Physics 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. Energy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:ZETA (fusion reactor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I'll be started the review soon. Headbomb (talk · contribs) 13:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick notes on reference: Hazeltine & Meiss (2013), and Seifer (2009) are missing page numbers. Bellan (2000) is missing/has wrong bibliographic information. Seifer (2009) is missing ISBN. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed except Seife - it doesn't have page numbers. I have a hard copy, but it's a different edition. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can a book not have page numbers? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of ebooks don't. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references are in good shape, as far as I can tell. The prose needs some minor proof-reading and copy-editing. With a quick skim, I found a hyphen instead of a dash, "hanger" instead of "hangar", "Amps" instead of "amps", inconsistent use of the serial comma, a mis-formatted ellipsis. I recommend putting it on the list at WP:GOCER. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: I have addressed the ones you mentioned, would you mind looking for any others? I'd like to avoid moving out of this process. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time in the next few days, but if you put it on the Requests list, I may be able to get to it next week. We're doing a one-week "blitz" on Requests next week, so there should be some good action on that backlog. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 and Maury Markowitz: Any progress on this? Just noticed it had been sitting for a bit, wanted to make sure it was still on someone's radar. Cheers! Kees08 (Talk) 07:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this GA is dead. I have fixed everything mentioned to date. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it has not been submitted as a copy-editing request. Apologies if I missed it. If you had put it on the list back in March, it would have been done long ago. There is no need to start the GA process over, since this pending review is just sitting here. I'm still seeing some clunky prose such as "the man that won the Nobel prize" and "Cockroft added the problem" and "their device was indeed producing fusion, and the rest of the world as well." – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed these three. I did not move it there because I have found, over many examples, that the process will fall off the cliff when it moves out of GA or A. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Any updates? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note for mods: Please close this GA, I'm moving it to FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]