# Talk:Samut Prakan radiation accident

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samut Prakan radiation accident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 20:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article.  MathewTownsend (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
review
I think this is a very well presented article. Even though you relied on one source primarily, I think you've supported it well with other sources when possible. And there's nothing in the article that appears controversial. The images are very helpful.  I've made a few minor edits.[1]
Just a few questions:
I'm not clear what this shows:[2]
That ref was added by User:Afernand74. I don't think it's really relevant, but I'll ask him to make sure. --Paul_012 (talk)
Here is my rationale for this ref (although not self explanatory, I admit). The IAEA report is saying that Nordion delivered the new unit is not factually true as Nordion did (and do) not manufacture any radiotherapy unit and that KSE was the local agent of its wholly-owned subsidiary Theratronics  Ltd (which is stil manufacturing them today). As Theratronics is not part of Nordion anymore I wanted to make this point clearer. The ref I provided proves the link back in the 90s between KSE and Theratronics; and Theratronics and Nordion (public Canadian company). When I add it, no reference was available to prove it. Moreover the IAEA report only talk about the KSE company without expliciting the acronym.
Having said that, I have no problem to remove this ref and discuss to which point this info is relevant. But I would at least rephrase the statement or provide another ref supporting the statement. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"teletherapy head" - what is this?
My understanding (the term's taken from the IAEA document) is it's the part of a teletherapy (external beam radiotherapy) machine which contains the components used to control and release radiation. In the image used in the article it would be (inside?) the globular part at the end of the arm above the patient. Not sure how to elegantly describe this in the article though. --Paul_012 (talk)
The teletherapy head contains the Co-60 rods used to treat the patient. It is used to distinguish it from the rest of the unit which do not carry any radiological hazard. It is a technical term commonly used by specialists. It may stays as it is imho. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Replies posted to each question. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
reply
I does appear that material needs a citation, as the other one just goes to the company website without any info about this particular info. So perhaps you can find one? Or find out if [3] contains the info?
Not sure to understand your request. The ref indicates that KSE is a sales agent of Therathronic, as an appendix to Nordion Annual accounts 1990. All the info is there. Could you elaborate? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
reply I'm wondering if the sentence: "The hospital retired the radiotherapy unit in 1994 and acquired a new one from Nordion via its Thai agent Kamol Sukosol Electric Company (KSE)." is sourced if [4] seems irrelevant (to me) and the other citation just goes to the KSE website that has no specific information (that I can see) supporting the sentence.
reply aff I added the direct ref and put in a note the rest of the info.
I think KSE's full name can be cited to the court of appeals verdict, if necessary. Paul_012 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
regarding "teletherapy head" - maybe just say "part of the teletherapy" or something similar, since the rest of the article makes it clear that the "part" (whatever it was) contained radiation.  MathewTownsend (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
reply aff I rephrased the sentence for an easier understanding by non specialists. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Pass!

Congratulations!  MathewTownsend (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)