Wikipedia:Peer review/Cold fusion/archive1
A lot of work has been done recently on this article, to remove POV and bring it to FAC status. Feedback is welcome on the following point:
- does it cover all what a "regular reader" might want to know about cold fusion. Is there any unanswered question ?
- quality of the prose, typos
Additional review of the content by experts in related subjects is also welcome Pcarbonn 10:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- The controversy over the credibility of the experimental data and which paper is peer reviewed and is OK and if a expert says he wants further research he believes cold fusion is real or not, makes everything complicated. The article it self is OK, but without the controversy it would be much better.--Stone 09:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do no get your first sentence. Pls clarify. Pcarbonn 10:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Looks okay, some comments:
- Per WP:LEAD, please cut down the introduction a tiny bit (to 3 paragraphs would be nice).
- Please reorder the last couple of sections according to WP:GTL.
- Image:SzpakIRcameraviews.jpg will need a fair use rationale (it has one, but only for another article- see WP:FUC)
- Image:Autoradiograph200dpi.jpg will need a copyright tag (I think {{Fairusein}} will work)
- See if a replacement image can be found for Image:ColdFusion.jpg - take a look at [1]
- Thanks, AndyZ t 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
