Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuclear reactor

Nuclear reactor

I found this article, and while I am not involved in it, I think it is a brilliant example of what can be done on Wikipedia. It is very well researched, intersting, and torough. Páll 23:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lead section does not work - it should give a general introduction to the article - however it contains a list of applications of nuclear reactors - this should be an individual section! Also the whole article only contains one image - why are there no diagrams of reactors or more precisely basic diagrams of the stages of a nuclear reactor? If an article about steam power was up for fa status i'd expect to see a basic diagram of a steam turbine in regard to the generation process. Oh, and the one image the page does contain is too large! It dominates the opening section. CGorman 23:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. 1) "Application" needs its own section separate from the lead. 2) Illustration needs to be thumbed. 3) "Process of fission" needs layman expansion and diagrams. 4) difference between pressure vessels and pressurized channels needs clarification. 5) Explain the diffence between pool and loop reactors. 6) A large number of technical terms are unexplained (peak supply, instantaneous power production, baseline supply, etc). 7) Major copyediting remains to be done to eliminate opaque paragraphs such as this: "In an attempt to encourage development of nuclear power, the US Department of Energy DOE has offered interested parties to introduce France model for licensing and to share 50% of a construction expenses. Several applications were made but project is still in its infancy." Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
• Although I've worked on it and I like it, I still have to oppose, in its current state. It refers to nuclear power plant for an explanation of how a nuclear reactor actually works, but there's not much of an explanation there either. Diagrams would be nice too (although there should be some Manhattan Project photos of an early one). More seriously, a lot of the nuclear technology articles could stand some refactoring. --Andrew 04:21, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)