Nuclear clock

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on whether the article is sufficiently accessible to a non- WP:TECHNICAL reader to qualify for B-grade. It's difficult for someone steeped in the literature enough to write the article to judge, so a separate reviewer's opinion would be valuable. (I'm pretty sure the other B-grade criteria are already met, but feel free to comment on those too, if you like.) 97.102.205.224 ( talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

(Created on behalf of User:97.102.205.224 by Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)) reply

Comments from Cryolophosaur

Overall, I think it does a good job of being accessible to non-technical readers; as someone not particularly familiar with physics or chemistry, I felt it was a pretty easy read. A few suggestions for improvement:

• The final few sentences of the lead section (about the suitability of thorium-229m) are confusing in isolation; the lead doesn't make it clear why energy or laser excitation are relevant. The following section expands on this, but in general, lead sections should stand on their own.
• There seem to be several violations of WP:EDITORIAL throughout the article. I fixed one of these myself, but many of them I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be able to elegantly rephrase the sentences. Some examples: "it is also intriguing", "it is evident", and "fortunately".
• The end of the ionization section mentions "the loss is tolerable", which left me wondering what "tolerable" means in this context and should probably be expanded on.

Cryolophosaur ( talk) 04:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply