Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Hurricane
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Operation Hurricane
[edit]
Britain's first atomic weapon is detonated.
... that, in Operation Hurricane, an atomic bomb was exploded in the hold of HMS Plym (pictured)? Source: [1]- ALT1 ... that, in Operation Hurricane, an atomic bomb was exploded in the hull of HMS Plym (pictured)? Source: [2]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Call of Cthulhu: The Official Video Game
- Comment: Pic is there if you want it.
Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC).
Recently promoted to GA. Long enough. For neutrality, my only concern is the last two sentences of Outcome. This sounds like commentary more than anything. I don't have access to the source, but are you certain this is fully supported by the source and given its due weight? Verifiability is quite good (as expected of a GA). Sources are offline, so AGF on close paraphrasing/copyvios. Quick point of clarification on the hook: is the hull and hold of a ship the same thing? I see a source specifically saying that this bomb detonated "inside the hull", but it's less clear if an appropriate inline cite is offered for hull. Otherwise, the hook is good. QPQ completed. Ping me once you've responded to the couple concerns. ~ Rob13Talk 05:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- The hold is inside the hull. To save having to fiddle with the sources, I have changed "hold" to "hull" in the article and the hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Could you respond to my comment about the end of the "Outcome" section? ~ Rob13Talk 14:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- In the source, Margaret Gowing (p. 500) says:
However, even while Britain had insisted so determinedly on the essentials of independence, she had also pressed relentlessly, throughout the period of this book, for some atomic collaboration, which the United States was so reluctant to concede... Nevertheless, full-scale collaboration was frequently dangled temptingly before British eyes and the British were prepared to pay a high price in the hope of seizing it.
- In the source, Margaret Gowing (p. 500) says:
- @Hawkeye7: Could you respond to my comment about the end of the "Outcome" section? ~ Rob13Talk 14:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- The hold is inside the hull. To save having to fiddle with the sources, I have changed "hold" to "hull" in the article and the hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- This part of the summary in the conclusion; Gowing and Arnold elaborate throughout the book. I've reduced it to a one-sentence summary. It helps the reader understand the reasoning behind the decisions (which is only summarised here, as it properly can be found in the High Explosive Research article), but it also points to the future: the development of the hydrogen bomb and the long-sought resumption of the Special Relationship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
