# Talk:Charles Critchfield

I was a bit surprised to see this bio of my late father on Wikipedia as his name is much more obscure now than it was in his heyday.  I was also surprised to see a glaring, though minor, error at the end of the article.  Even though the opening parenthetical dates of birth and death, as well as those in the sidebar, are correct the penultimate paragraph (just prior to the one sentence last paragraph describing his burial) mysteriously has his date of death as September 15, 1994 which is a full seven months after his actual date of death.  Curious.
I would also like to point out an important omission in the description of his wartime assignments at Los Alamos.  All that is mentioned in the article is that he was Group Leader of the Target, Projectile and Source Group (Group E-4, June 1943 - August 1944.)  While that is true of the initial organization of the Laboratory the important omission here is that when the Laboratory was reorganized Oppenheimer transferred my father to Robert F. Bacher's Gadget Division where he headed up the Initiator Group (Group G-10, August 1944 - August 1945.)  It was that group which succeeded in designing and building the initiator (neutron generator) without which the implosion weapon would not have functioned.
The two organizations of the wartime Los Alamos Laboratory can be seen on an American Institute of Physics webpage at:
http://www.aip.org/history/acap/institutions/manhattan.jsp
Bobcritch (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Both these points have been addressed.  Deer*lake (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Critchfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Corvus coronoides (talk · contribs) 15:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Review in progress. Corvus coronoides talk 15:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


### Article on hold
Overall looks good.  I'm placing the article on hold for 7 days (until 9 August 2013) pending resolution of the following issues:

in the Postwar section, "After the war, Critchfield returned to George Washington University, but left to join Wigner at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory" - when did he leave?  Immediately?  a few months later?  a few years later?
My source says: "After the war Critchfield returned briefly to George Washington University, then left to help Wigner establish Queen's College for Nuclear Knowledge at Oak Ridge." So we know he left Los Alamos in 1946, and left Oak Ridge in 1947. It doesn't give him much time, but we don't know the exact date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright then.  I would suggest rephrasing to say "left soon after" or "later left" or else "returned briefly" - I think it helps the flow a little, but up to you. Corvus coronoides talk 22:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
in the Later life section, "By the end of the month, because of questions raised in Congress by California representative Chester E. Holifield, Critchfield withdrew his name from consideration."  - what kinds of questions?  a little clarification here would improve coverage.
Y This took a bit of digging, but I came up with this: "McElroy hoped that Critchfield would be able to fix the nation's trouble missile program, but Critchfield was reluctant to serve at the director's $19,000 salary. McElroy then offered to let Critchfield serve without pay, with the government paying only his expenses of $15 per day, while allowing Critchfield to continue to draw his Convair salary of around $40,000. Critchfield accepted this offer, but ran into a storm of political and media criticism over the conflict of interest involved in heading an agency that did $4 million worth of business with Convair each year. Critchfield then withdrew his name from consideration." This was kind of interesting actually. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
in the Later life section, "At Los Alamos, he became the mentor of a new generation of young scientists." - this sentence seems editorial.  It could be deleted, or clarified by listing (and referencing) some of the young scientists in question.
Y deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me know if there are any questions/comments/concerns.  Best, Corvus coronoides talk 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


### GA Passed
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Nice work.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Well-written and nice lead.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Plentiful cites.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Coverage sufficient.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No neutrality issues here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images good and public domain.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Good work on the article and digging up sources on the things I mentioned in the hold.  Pass.  Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A few minutes after he started the review, the reviewer made six edits to the article.  In view of the requirement that "Anyone who has not contributed significantly to … this article may review it", Is this appropriate?  
Some of these edits are substantive.  For example, the edit of 15:35, 2 August 2013 incorrectly changes the advisor of Sophie Oleksa from Critchfield to Edward Ney.     Deer*lake (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there.  The edit you link to was an error on my part; I misunderstood the sentence in question and thought that Oleksa was one of Critchfield's students and the sentence was poorly worded. I see that it has been fixed now, and I apologize and will make an effort to avoid such mistakes in the future.
Regarding making edits, I think you'll find the remainder of the edits I made as part of the review process (diff) to be minor.  Per GA Review instructions, reviewers are encouraged to make fixes themselves if issues are minor.  I like doing this because it saves me from having to point every single out typo/wording issue I come across.
Also, the reviewer in this case is a 'she'.  Best, Corvus coronoides talk 19:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
PS you have me confused on the edit in question again.  Who was Oleksa's advisor?  Critchfield, or Ney?  I think my edit changed it to Critchfield from Ney, and assumed that you meant that was incorrect, but you have it the other way around in your comment.  Corvus coronoides talk 20:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Critchfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130226013350/http://www.petervogel.us/lastwave/chapters/LastWave_Ch11.pdf to http://www.petervogel.us/lastwave/chapters/LastWave_Ch11.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://astrophysics.fic.uni.lodz.pl/100yrs/pdf/05/027.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)