# Talk:Matthew Sands

This is a mess. How do we tag it for needing serious clean up? It's full of typos and grammatical errors. unsigned comment at 11:49, 27 September 2009‎ by 75.61.232.112 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Matthew Sands/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pax85 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I will be reviewing the article over the next week or so. I will probably do some minor copy edits here and there. This is, admittedly, my first GAN review, so I am not sure if I should feel sorry for you or not! Please hang on, as I have somewhat intermittent internet access at the moment. -Pax Verbum 23:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I found myself with some extra time today, so here you go. Before I give a final assessment, can you address the red sections and my comments at the end? If those are taken care of, it is sure to pass. Please let me know if you have any questions!-Pax Verbum 04:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments:

World War II
"Sands was at the Trinity nuclear test site..." This transition from the previous paragraph is quite awkward and comes out of nowhere. It needs more clarity, such as adding a word or two that it was connected to his work at Los Alamos, or something similar. It made me feel like he had switched jobs completely.
I am rather used to writing about the Trinity Test. See if the wording suits now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
MIT
"One part, the expansion of nuclear physics, was spearheaded by physics professor Jerrold R. Zacharias" - One part of what? The new expansion? It's important to be very clear and avoid vague terms, especially for readers who may be new to the topic.
Slightly reworded to make the point clearer Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Caltech
There is a hidden sentence. Does it need to be included? I think it is an excellent addition, if the information is included in the source.
I commented it out because I couldn't find a source. I know he provided answers to Feynman's problem sets. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah OK. I wish we could find a source! It's a great anecdote. I will try looking too. I'm on my mobile now, but when I get on for my "regular" Wiki session tonight, I will do one last check and then pass the review. -Pax Verbum 15:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your changes and for such a speedy response! I am promoting the article. -Pax Verbum 19:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)