Talk:Page Ackerman

A fact from Page Ackerman appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 July 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Page Ackerman was post librarian at the U.S. Army development site of the atomic bomb?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Page Ackerman.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by JuniperChill talk 09:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Page Ackerman was post librarian at the U. S. Army development site of the atomic bomb?

Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times/150533568/

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ryan Warsofsky

Created by SL93 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 410 past nominations.

SL93 (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Page is new and long enough and the hook is interesting, verified, and present with a citation in the article. Sourcing looks good and QPQ is complete. Good to go. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen Proving Ground was not the site for development of the atomic bomb

This is not a true statement. The Aberdeen Proving Ground was not THE Army development site of the atomic bomb, it was not even a peripheral site. Richard Rhodes's definitive, Pulitzer prize winning book on the development of the bomb does not even mention it (there is no mention of Aberdeen in the index). The Wikipedia entry for Aberdeen shows only a criticality incident there in 1968, no mention of any early bomb development. And, the first reference in the APG Wikipedia article is to a Wayback Machine article on the whole history of the APG and has no mention of nuclear work. The Ackerman reference is to a newspaper article that is obviously in error; it is at odds with the 3 other sources noted above. How does one correctly correct an article that has a reference that is obviously incorrect? I have just deleted the information and the reference. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does one correctly correct an article that has a reference that is obviously incorrect? WP:When sources are wrong answers this. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of where I should put the above correction . . . .

Not a very experienced user, I put the above correction on the Page Ackerman article, and the discussion of it on the talk page of the Page Ackerman article. I did this as it seemed the simplest, most correct place, I may be wrong. It is a DYK article. I am happy to just correct the original article, not correct the DYK part - it will expire in a couple days and I don't want to piss into the wind changing what is in the DYK part. I apologize if I am doing this wrong, and if so perhaps some kind soul can make my work right???

Thanks in advance, G. R. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dr.gregory.retzlaff, for your report. You've done everything right and your correction is much appreciated. Schwede 66 10:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you muchly, I'd rather be lucky than good anyday!

G. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She received recognition for her work.

"She received recognition for her work." So what? Nearly everybody receives recognition for their work. What about this recognition is important or notable? We don't say that Elvis Presley received recognition, we give details. We don't just say that Marie Curie "received recognition". "She received recognition for her work" is a true statement that tells us nothing and gives us no reason to care. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did give details in the article and it’s just one sentence in the lead. No one else had an issue with it, until you came along with your blatant rudeness. People are commonly more receptive to changes when the person isn’t being rude for no good reason. I understand you have an issue with it, but I don’t understand why it seems to make you act rude. SL93 (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only "blatant rudeness" I see is your use of the term "ass". My edit summaries were statements of confusion. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and the sentence is staying because there are details. You can start a content discussion somewhere that is much longer than the sentence in question if you wish. SL93 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]