Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Van Allen radiation belt/archive1

Van Allen radiation belt

I just found this article with the random page function. It is well-written, informative, interesting, and has an image. As far as I can tell—I am no expert—it is also very complete. I would like to see this article make it to FA status. Jordi·✆ 09:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object for the moment - there is a lot of interesting detail in here and it's mostly well written but there are a few points I think should be addressed:
  • Occasional awkward wording eg Qualitatively, it is very useful to view this belt as consisting of two belts around Earth, the inner radiation belt and the outer radiation belt. - why not just 'The belt consists of an inner and outer belt.'?
  • Over-capitalisation of section titles
  • Somewhat under-referenced - only 3 refs, and specific positions attributed to Tom Gold and Alex Dressler are not obviously sourced. Also, some more journal or book references as opposed to web references would be more trustworthy.
  • The apparent cold war claims about nuclear testing seem bizarre and are unsourced - I'd suggest they could be removed altogether.
  • If an article for Sherwood Machine does not exist, a 'See also:' pointing too it seems redundant
  • I feel the section about space elevators is over-long and contains much that would be better in the article about space elevators themselves.
  • Contradictory information about surviving a passage through the belts - did Apollo astronauts really receive 1% of a fatal dose? Reference? How so, if 1mm of lead shielding would block all belt particles as stated in intro? Also, how does this square with the claim that one could live for months, even at the most intense part of the belts? Worldtraveller 17:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Good article, but can use a little expantion. The pharase in lead The presence of a radiation belt had been theorized prior to the Space Age - should be elaborated with the history of the discovery - who theorized, when, who opposed, etc. Some printed references would be nice. I also added a first category - astronomy - but it surely can use a more detailed one. Still, those are minor objections and I expect I will be able to change my vote soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)