Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British hydrogen bomb programme/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2017 [1].

British hydrogen bomb programme

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British development of the hydrogen bomb in the 1950s. I created it in my Sandbox on 13 May 2017, and moved to to the mainspace on 1 June. Since then it has passed DYK, GA and A class reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Operation_Grapple_May_1957.jpg: source states image is PD not CC BY-SA
Changed to the correct licence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:TrumanAttleeKing1945.jpg: when/where was this first published?
Probably back in 1945. The Canadian government asserts that copyright has expired, hence was subject to Crown copyright and was first published more than 50 years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for US status, which rationale from the tag is believed to apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is the first one. The image was made available as part of the press kit from the conference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Castle_Bravo_007.jpg: source link is dead.
Substituted another URL. Replaced with a nicer image I found in the process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Nothing much to say here:

It would look neat if isbns were in consistent format (see Macmillan)
Ran the ISBN script over the aricle, but that was the only inconsistent one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We generally have "Basingstoke, Hampshire", but for Arnold and Smith, just "Basingstoke"
Changed to "Basingstoke, Hampshire". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of Basdingstoke, the publisher is variously given as "Palgrave", "Palgrave Macmillan" and "Macmillan". Are these three different imprints? If not, choose one format.
I just copied what it said in the indicia of my copies. According to the Wikipedia: Palgrave Macmillan was created in 2000 when St. Martin's Press Scholarly and Reference in the USA united with Macmillan Publishers in the UK to combine their worldwide academic publishing operations. The company was known as simply Palgrave until 2002, but has since been known as Palgrave Macmillan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of the required standard of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made one tweak. "Boost" has a technical meaning when we are referring to nuclear weapons. When detonating the Castle Bravo device, the Americans made a big mistake. They enriched their lithium to 40% lithium-6 and assumed that the more abundant lithium-7 contributes nothing. However, they discovered the hard way that if lithium-7 is hit with a neutron hard enough, it fissions to produce helium, tritium and a neutron. The tritium fuses; the neutron can cause additional fission. The bomb exploded with a force of 14 Megatons instead of 4 Megatons, to which the scientists could only say: "oops". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to know. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Interesting, professionally written. I don't know enough physics to wade deeply into the technical stuff, but I'm able to comment on prose and style. My suggestions and questions are simple and few.

Decision

¶1 "...15 megatonnes of TNT (63 PJ)..." – For clarity, link TNT and PJ?
I can't link TNT, because the conversion template is being used, but I have linked megatonnes of TNT and PetaJoules. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶5 "...had touched off a storm of protest", and "stormy debate" appear almost back-to-back in the same sentence. Replace one or the other? Or is this intentional?
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶6 "...looked favourably on the idea..." – I think this would read a bit more smoothly if it were altered to "...looked favourably on the idea of a moratorium...".
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation

¶1 "...had agreed to some flexibility in exceptional cases" – Delete "some" as unnecessary?
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶ "...another committee was established under Lord Waverley..." – He's identified as Sir John Anderson in ¶2 of the Tube Alloys section. For clarity, should he be identified in the same way in both places?
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶3 "He was too senior to be placed in Corner's theoretical physics division...". – Who or what is Corner? I don't seem to find an explanation earlier in the article.
He is introduced earlier, in the "decision" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations

¶2 "Testing of the boosted designs was carried out in the Operation Mosaic tests in the Monte Bello Islands in May and June 1956." – Rep of "testing...tests". Suggestion: "In May and June 1956, Operation Mosaic tested the boosted designs in the Monte Bello Islands."
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶2 Add the location of the Monte Bello Islands to the above sentence?
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶4 "It was estimated that 18,640 measurement tons...". Link or explain "measurement ton"?
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶5 "The design was frozen in April 1956." – Would most readers find something like "The final design was approved in April 1956" more instantly clear than "frozen"?
That wouldn't be correct though. "Frozen" means that you tell the engineers to stop fiddling with it so you can ship it. Further changes go into the next release. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First series

¶1 "had not attempted this..." – Replace "this" with "an airdrop of a hydrogen bomb" or something similar?
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General

No dead URLS and no problems with duplinks, alt text, or disambiguation.

That's all. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All looks fine. Switching to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article in detail at Milhist A-Class review, and could find little to comment on then. I've reviewed changes since then and can't see anything that needs tweaking. Great job! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Some images have alt text while others do not. For consistency, I think we should go down one route or the other. In any case, this is not worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.