Talk:Project Pluto/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All images properly licensed
Is Merkle notable? If so redlink
Why using metric units and British/Australian spellings?
Be consistent about date format
Lots of detail in the lede that's repeated in the main body. It should be a summary.
More later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

I thought the images were beautiful. Took some finding too.
- I'm glad that you took the time; they're really nice.
I considered whether Merkle was notable while writing the article, but could not find enough biographical information to construct an article.
- Fair enough.
Metric units are used per MOS:METRIC: "In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.) ... In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units". I regarded the article as scientific in nature. Many of the sources, although some were written in America and in the 1950s and '60s, consistently used metric; the others were in a mixture of Imperial and metric. Adjusted the conversion templates to use American spellings.
- I was thinking of Imperial units for larger units and metric for the smaller ones as it sorta croggles me to see references to km of roadway, etc., in a US article.
  That would be more historically accurate and true to the sources. Generally speaking, the engineering was in imperial and the science in metric, so the size of the fuel elements was in imperial but their contents in metric, but at the test site they used both; temperatures were sometimes in Celsius and sometimes in Fahrenheit, and pressures are sometimes in psi and sometimes in millibars, often in the same report. And then there was the occasional wtf unit, like megawatts per cubic foot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done a pass through and adjusted the two stray date formats.
The lead is a summary of the article, so it repeats information that is in the body. As is my general practice when expanding an article, the lead is substantially the article as it was before expansion.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- That doesn't serve you or the article well in this case. Not least because all the stuff about the facility in the lede is irrelevant for the lede, not to mention contains data that isn't in the main body and contradicts some of the figures there. Consolidate all that stuff in the main body where it's needed.
- Since Merkle isn't notable, he doesn't need to be listed in the lede, either.
  Maybe not, I've kept him in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion about the technological problems is good, but exactly who built the fuel elements isn't important. And the specific info on the engines in the last para seems redundant to the last sentence of the first para.
  Y Re-worked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What's missing is a summary of the origins section and the first two paras of the development section explaining the background and operational-use case for the engine as part of a weapons system. And a few more details on the engine testing regime wouldn't be amiss. "Roaring to life" is very literary, but doesn't suffice, especially given the amount of material devoted to the engine tests in the article.
  Y Very grateful that you specified what you thought should be added. Usually people ask for the lead to be expanded without telling me what additional material it should contain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And there needs to be better coverage of the cancellation with explanations as to why.
  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the article looks pretty good as I'm not seeing much, if at all, but I'll give it another read through once you've dealt with the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always have the hardest time with the lede, especially since it's hard to summarize the important specs of a ship without simply duplicating info in the main body. This one's a lot easier to do than most of mine even though it's got tons of scientific data because there's so much more info on the overall program and why they wanted it. I'll reread the article again for final comments before the weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]