Talk:Operation Crossroads/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Everything appears fine
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS compliance checks out
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References provided
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Criteria met
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I can see no gaps needing filling-in at this level
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Focus/breadth balance fine
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article history indicates no edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	all clear
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	criteria met
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing

References/link issues:

There are four dead refs, all pointing to www.dtra.mil - can those be repaired?
- Three of them can. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a ref to Manhattan Project – Operation Crossroads (DOE History), apparently redirected to a different web page. That one should be changed to an appropriate page.
- Removed the ref.
Ref link to United States Navy CMWDS (info) [navy.mil] appears to be broken.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bradley, No Place to hide could have OCLC parameter (622505066), ditto for The Swords of Armageddon U.S. nuclear weapons development since 1945 (34985730), Operation Crossroads: The Official Pictorial Record (1223420), and Bombs at Bikini: The Official Report of Operation Crossroads (1492066).--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Coster-Mullen, Atom Bombs: The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man (Spiral-bound) fall within WP:SPS provisions for acceptance of self-published work? Which publication established the author as a reliable source?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The New Yorker for one. His work has revolutionised our understanding of nuclear weapons design, especially of the Little Boy bomb. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Life magazine source should have the ISSN parameter added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ref pointing to the The Niedenthal, Jack (2008), A Short History of the People of Bikini Atoll actually takes readers to a website that does not appear to be a WP:RS. Furthermore, the citation claims year 2008 (presumably) as publication year, while the website specifies 2001. Google books appear to support year 2001 as well ([1]). Assuming that the claim is supported by the book, wouldn't it be possible to change this ref to point to the book instead?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just moved. Changed to the new location. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Mortality of Veteran Participants in the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test: Study pursuant to 1983 Public Law 98–160 ref needs additional parameters (ISBN) available here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS issues:

Per MOS:NBSP, a non-breaking space should be used between numbers and associated units of measurement, such as in The 10.6 pounds (4.8 kg) of plutonium.... Alternatively, a {{convert}} template may be used.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A non-breaking space is also needed between time value and "a.m." or "p.m."--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are "Able", "Baker", "Charlie" and "Crossroads" (in Crossroads follow-up) italicized? I found no relevant support for the text formatting in MOS:ITALIC.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Able and Baker fall under "named exhibitions" I think. For consistency, I have de-Italicised "Operation Crossroads". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "named exhibitions" are listed as an item under "Works of art and artifice", therefore that seems quite unlikely. Also "Operation Crossroads" is still sometimes italicized and in other instances not.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rank should be omitted before surnames of people already mentioned (the 1st instance should contain full rank and name) per WP:SURNAME. One such instance is Vice Admiral Blandy, referred to as either "Blandy" or "Admiral Blandy" after the 1st instance of the name.
- Dione. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Nicknames" subsection, words Able, Baker, Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, How and Mike should be italicized (instead of placed in quotation marks) per WP:WORDSASWORDS. The same applies to the terms describing words as words in the "Sequence of blast events" and "Arkansas" subsections.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No DAB links found. I'll post further comments here shortly, once I thoroughly read the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In On September 19, the Chief of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), General of the Army Henry H. Arnold, asked the Navy to save ten of the thirty-eight captured Japanese ships for use in the test proposed by McMahon., it is unclear what was the Navy asked to save the ships from? Would it be better to say something like "spare" or "set aside" instead?
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In President Harry S. Truman appointed Blandy as head of Army/Navy Joint Task Force One (JTF-1), newly created to conduct the tests which he named Operation Crossroads., it is unclear (at least to me) who named the tests - Truman or Blandy?
- Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Colonel Paul W. Tibbets believed that it was a miscalculation by the crew., there appears to be something missing. I suppose the "it" refers to cause of the miss, so perhaps it would be more clear to say something like "Colonel Paul W. Tibbets believed that the miss was caused by a miscalculation of the crew.
- Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In The Baker shot produced so many unusual phenomena that two months later a conference was held to standardize nomenclature and define new terms for use in descriptions and analysis., time clause should be moved to the end of the sentence or separated by commas.
- Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In The underwater fireball took the form of a rapidly expanding hot "gas bubble" ..., if the fireball (I'm not quite sure personally) was a gas bubble, it should not be in quotation marks, and if it was not gas, then I suppose the word "gas" should be omitted as well.
- It was a gas bubble. Removed quotes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Shouldn't the "Operation Crossroads" and the "Manhattan Project" always be preceded by a definite article?~~--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subsection title "Actual film badge readings" appears redundant. In my view it would be better suited as a title of the table following the subsection title.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to replace For the main expected causes of this increased mortality, leukemia and other cancers, the incidence was not significantly higher than normal. with "Incidence of the main expected causes of this increased mortality, leukemia and other cancers was not significantly higher than normal."?
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I like the article - obviously a lot of work went into its writing. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask another editor to have a look at the prose, just to check if I missed anything of substance in that area.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking prose as requested, but before I do, there is quite a bit of overlinking needing attention: "German cruiser Prinz Eugen", "shock wave", "mushroom cloud", "stratosphere" , "USS Arkansas (BB-33)", "stern", "museum ship", "USS Saratoga (CV-3)", "Manhattan Project", "Harry K. Daglian", "Louis Slotin", "fission products", "chlorine-35", "USS Haven", "USS New York", "plutonium", "roentgens", "Rongerik Atoll", "Kwajalein Atoll", "fallout", "bikini".
- Removed all the duplicates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"to setten of the", not sure what that means. "to settle on"?
- Should be "set aside". Some sort of hiccup there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"worse, mostly due to"?
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the Trinity burst was at 100 feet and had local fallout, but to be a real airburst without local fallout it needed to be at 100 feet?
- Should be 580 feet Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is a cite error, "Cite error: <ref> tag with name "FOOTNOTEShurcliff1947109.2C_155" defined in <references> is not used in prior text"
- That one was weird. Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all good. Prose review completed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work. Just removed some redundant nbsps - they are needed in between numbers and units of measure to prevent say "kg" or "a.m." breaking into a new line while leaving the figure behind. It's ok to have a line break in between "60 goats". Happy to pass this GAN!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]