Revision as of 19:48, 12 August 2024 editPianoDan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,322 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:09, 7 December 2024 edit undoPasky (talk | contribs)241 edits re-add good article section, still active initiative for me (though slow moving) |
(13 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) |
Line 53: |
Line 53: |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 13 |
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive %(counter)d |
Line 95: |
Line 95: |
|
] |
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Grammar == |
|
== Coolant Flow paradox needs further discussion. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first sentence of the sub-section "Fuel-containing materials" has a grammatical error. The first sentence reads "About 95% of the fuel in reactor No. 4 at the time of the accident." This is obviously not a complete sentence. It is unclear to me what the original literary intent of this clause was. This half-sentence could be removed without impeding the reader's understanding of the following text. ] (]) 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
In the last paragraph of "Background", just before we enter the "Accident", the following statement is made: "'''excessively high coolant flow rates through the core meant that the coolant was entering the reactor very close to the boiling point.'''" Boiling coolant leads to steam bubbles which creates a non-liquid neutron absorbing void in the reactor core. This is clear in the discussion. However, the statement referenced appears to say that high coolant flow leads to high coolant temperatures - which is counterintuitive. In theory, if you want to cool something down, you increase the coolant flow. Perhaps there is a link to high coolant flow necessitating high coolant flow through the heat exchange system, and hence quickly moving coolant does not get a chance to cool before it reenters the reactor. (Note "perhaps", it's been a long time since I took a reactor design course.) "Bottom line", as Michael Weston would say, is this critical state of high coolant flow leading to boiling point coolant needs to be explained for it in some ways is the cause of the entire accident. ] (]) 09:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:I added a phrase or too.] (]) 13:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Grammar edit recommendation == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|Chernobyl disaster|answered=yes}} |
|
In the first paragraph of (Top), The following fact is told: |
|
|
|
Under the "In popular culture" section, it says THQ produced STALKER, this is not true GSC Gameworld, a Ukrainian video games developer, produced it. ] (]) 16:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
"The initial emergency response and subsequent mitigation efforts involved more than 500,000 personnel and cost an estimated 18 billion roubles" |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> The article doesn't say THQ produced the game, it says it released it, which according to the game's article would appear to be true. With that said, I'm of the opinion that a video game's developer is usually far more responsible for it than its publisher, so I added a few words that include GSC's role. ] (]) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Getting this to a Good Article state == |
|
The problem is, I am 70% sure that "and cost an estimated 10 billion roubles" is not correct. Noting the article is written in past tense, I'm pretty sure "cost" should be "costed". ] (]) 15:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After few years, I have come back to the article and made a variety of significant edits, mainly simplifying the overall layout. My goal would be to get this article to a state where it can be nominated to a Good Article and a Featured Article - seems worthwhile given the importance of the event as well as this article being in the Top 100 visited articles. |
|
:No, "cost" is correct. I don't know why, but it's correct. ] (]) 15:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how much time I can invest into this of course, but seeing a variety of activity from others recently inspired me and I thought I'd start a collaborative checklist below. Feel free to edit it further, or cross out things that are done! |
|
== NPOV issues with "Disputed investigation" section. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Update the Background with key information about RBMK and the ChNPP. |
|
This section comes across as if written by a pro-nuclear defender (or apologist, depending on your POV). It mentions "Moller has been reprimanded for publishing papers that crossed the scientific "misconduct"/"fraud" line." but reading the citation/source doesn't support the wording in the article. Moller was indeed accused of scientific misconduct"/"fraud but a French panel of scientists found no credible evidence to support the claim, so it seems that claim is disputed (according to the Nature article used a source). There is talk about "continuing to publish experimentally unrepeatable and discredited papers." but no source shows that there is a a consensus that Mousseau appears related to the Chernobyl disaster general considered discredited or that his reputation overall is such that all his work should be discounted outright. Once citation/source links to a guest column at AtomicInsights.com that is the opinion by only one individual who disputes a talk Mousseau gave on Fukushima (not The Chernobyl disaster). This seems sort like an add-hominem attach on the guy because of disagreement over his Fukushima talk. If his is generally discredited in the scientific community then multiple better sources should be able to be produced and cited. Finally, the section claims the book "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" been generally discredited but neither the link presented support that claim not does the Misplaced Pages article on the book. It's fair to say the book is "disputed" but we need better sources if you want to claim has been "discredited". This article is not the place to debate or address the anti-nuclear movement in general as there are other Misplaced Pages article for that. Stick to addressing specific claims about the effects of medical & environmental of the Chernobyl Disaster specifically and whether it supports any anti-nuclear arguments or not. Leave the general arguments pro and con about nuclear energy in general to the article on Nuclear Energy, Anti-Nuclear movement, Nuclear Energy Safety, etc. - ] (]) 22:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Update the Impact section with information about impact on Soviet Union (some of it may be moved from the Socio-economic impact section?) |
|
:I can't speak to the paper in question, but the linked article concerning the Yabloko report has adequate support for calling this non-peer-reviewed work 'discredited.'] (]) 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Reconcile the Long-term effects section with the ] article. There is significant overlap but also differences, and I believe the section would benefit from trimming down details. |
|
|
|
|
|
** Pet peeve: The table in Release and spread of radioactive materials; moreover it omits many countries, the primary source of the secondary source cited has more lines, but I think a map would be better. The popular one seems copyrighted and I'm not sure if it'd fall under a non-free use exception, I tried to ask the EC for permission... but actually we'd have to get permission also from Ukrainian and Russian governments, seems possible but a tall order. |
|
== Factual correction request == |
|
|
|
* Revisit each remaining section with further-information or main-article link and make sure that each such section only provides key summary in the main article and details are moved to the specialized article. |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
] (]) 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
In the section '''Immediate site and area remediation''', specifically in the sub-section '''Area cleanup''', the following is stated: |
|
|
|
|
|
''Although a number of radioactive emergency vehicles were buried in trenches, many of the vehicles used by the liquidators, including the helicopters, <u>still remained, as of 2018</u>, parked in a field in the Chernobyl area.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
This statement is not correct, as comparison photos show the field being completely emptied some time between April 2012 and July 2013. |
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest the following re-wording of the above text: |
|
|
|
|
|
''Although a number of radioactive emergency vehicles were buried in trenches, many of the vehicles used by the liquidators, including the helicopters, remained parked in a field in the Chernobyl area, some for over 20 years. Satellite imagery shows that the vehicles were progressively removed in the early 2000's with the field being completely emptied by July 2013.'' ] (]) 08:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is still at least one open air storage area for vehicles left, so the passage isn't inaccurate. But it could certainly be expanded to distinguish between Buryakivka, Rassokha, etc.] (]) 15:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|Chernobyl disaster|answered=no}} |
|
|
Replace "cost an estimated 18 billion roubles—roughly US$68 billion in 2019" In the first paragraph with "with cost an estimated 18 billion roubles—roughly US$200 million in 2024" |
|
|
(yeah money value has gone down) ] (]) 23:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The article is comparing 1986 Soviet rubles to USD, not 2024 Russian rubles to USD.] (]) 23:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I feel like we shouldn't be putting in numbers we keep having to update every year due to inflation. It would be better to just list the cost in both roubles and dollars at some fixed point and just specify that point. |
|
|
::That said - I can't find the source of the numbers we DO have. Where are these numbers coming from? ] (]) 19:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
The fist sentence should read: "At the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the city of Pripyat, located in the then Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR)" instead of: "at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the city of Pripyat, then located in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR)". It did not physically move.
The section titled "Social Economic Effects" should be renamed to "socioeconomic effects" to reflect proper terminology.
The timeline says all fires were contained at 6:35 - this should probably mention "fires around the power plant": The core continued to burn days after, but there is no description what measures really lead to containing the fire inside the reactor. It just says "It is now known that virtually none of the neutron absorbers reached the core." It is not clear what really stopped the fire.
There's a rather extended high-comma-count "sentence" with what looks to be a misspelling.
This has come up before, see..
The first sentence of the sub-section "Fuel-containing materials" has a grammatical error. The first sentence reads "About 95% of the fuel in reactor No. 4 at the time of the accident." This is obviously not a complete sentence. It is unclear to me what the original literary intent of this clause was. This half-sentence could be removed without impeding the reader's understanding of the following text. CALPHone (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Under the "In popular culture" section, it says THQ produced STALKER, this is not true GSC Gameworld, a Ukrainian video games developer, produced it. Wikipedianikolas (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
After few years, I have come back to the article and made a variety of significant edits, mainly simplifying the overall layout. My goal would be to get this article to a state where it can be nominated to a Good Article and a Featured Article - seems worthwhile given the importance of the event as well as this article being in the Top 100 visited articles.
I'm not sure how much time I can invest into this of course, but seeing a variety of activity from others recently inspired me and I thought I'd start a collaborative checklist below. Feel free to edit it further, or cross out things that are done!