|
Really solid article. A few comments on a first pass (Lead up to and including "Aboriginal affairs"). Items with questions mark are more probing questions/suggestions.
- I am not a nuclear expert, but I am used to seeing kT, but not TJ. Is this standard? Or maybe too much info?
- TNT equivalent is what is universally used for nuclear weapons tests. WP:UNITS:
the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. Hence kilotons of TNT is the primary unit here, with a conversion to the SI unit for energy (the joule). A kiloton is 4.184 TJ by definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider changing Second World War > World War II for consistency with that article title?
- World War II is an Americanism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) > The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act). The former is not the title of the act, and the way it's linked suggests it is.
- In this article, the assumption would be an Australian act, so "United States" is used to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjusted to "US Atomic Energy Act of 1946" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the time Britain was still Australia's largest trading partner," - at what time? I assume ~1946. And how is this directly relevant?
- Changed to "in the 1950s". The relevance is in why the Australian government granted permission to the British government to conduct nuclear tests in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Robert Menzies, who came to office in 1949, was strongly pro-British" - I looked at his article and see he was PM from 1949 to 1966, this needs to be explained in this article to show the relevance.
- Changed to "Robert Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia from 1949 to 1966". He was previously in office from 1939 to 1941. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What do free passage and subsidised passage mean, specifically? Of course I can guess but I shouldn't have to. e.g. from where to where.
- Added "on ships from the UK to Australia" and inked to the article on Ten Pound Poms. This is before the era of air travel. The trip cost about £120 in 1945, but immigrants were charged only £10. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 1948 Modus Vivendi" - no idea what this is even after clicking the link.
- I should write an article on it. Added "the nuclear agreement between the US and UK which superseded the wartime Quebec Agreement" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How is Australia's exclusion from NATO relevant? "Western Alliance" is a bigger term than just NATO and Australia very much in that sphere of influence.
- You'll find "Western Alliance" links to "NATO". This left Australia without allies in an uncertain post-war world. Hence the desire to re-kindle ties with the UK, and to acquire nuclear weapons. Australia's exclusion had long-effects that are still being felt today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Did signature of ANZUS in 1951 not secure Australia's place in the Western Alliance? Mark83 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ANZUS secured Australia's agreement to the signing of a peace treaty with Japan. It is a non-binding co-operation agreement between Australia, New Zealand and and the United States. Unlike NATO, ANZUS has no integrated structure, no dedicated forces, no secretariat or formal structure, no mutual obligations, and does not involve any of the Western Alliance countries other than the US. Far more important was the US designating Australia a major non-NATO ally in 1989, which has some tangible benefits, but still falls a long way short of what NATO countries get. In the 21st century, long after the period cover by the article, there are some intelligence-sharing agreements in place with Western Alliance nations, and as a result of the debacle in Afghanistan, NATO entered into a series of partnership agreements with Australia. This is still a long way short of NATO membership, but it is hoped that it will at least head off a repeat of what happened in Afghanistan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- When reading "Neither the Montebello Islands nor Emu Field were considered suitable as permanent test sites" it makes you think why not? The site selection criteria is further down (bulleted list) so perhaps this can be reorganised slightly?
- Added "Montebello could be accessed only by sea, and Emu had problems with its water supply and dust storms." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "the area north of Emu Field.... was on the axis of the Long Range Weapons Establishment" - leaves me questioning what the problem is?
- Added "which meant that there would be a competing claim on the use of the area." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "a temporary airstrip was created in two days by land rovers pulling a length of railway line" - I'm guessing this just means they dragged it along the surface to level and clear the site? But is this clear and/or relevant? Maybe just "a temporary airstrip was created in two days"?
- I think this gives the reader a clearer picture of the rough and ready nature of the strip. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "10 megalitres.. per annum could be obtained boring" > 10 megalitres.. per annum could be obtained by boring". And are all the conversions necessary?
- Added. Removed additional conversions. We only need imperial gallons and litres. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In line references should be after punctuation. Some examples where this is not the case.
- Found and fixed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- J. M. Wilson - not linked so are they relevant?
- Indicates the level of the mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- UKMOS doesn't seem like an accepted abbreviation? Should be UK MoS or just MoS after first instance
- Used in the sources. Changed to "MoS". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- although Cabinet did not give its assent until 4 May - when reading this I thought it meant British Cabinet. It's linked to Australian Cabinet so that needs to be clearer.
- Added "Australian". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "The British government welcomed Australian financial assistance, and Australian participation avoided the embarrassment that would have come from building a UK base on Australian soil. On the other hand, it was recognised that Australian participation would likely mean that the Australians would demand access to even more information than in Operation Totem. This had implications for Britain's relationship with the United States." Is this all covered by the next reference? Sorry don't have immediate access to it to check. Seem like important points.
- Yes, it is a summary of what the reference says. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "the wartime nuclear Special Relationship" - that article is about much more than just nuclear weapons, so not sure the way it's linked is appropriate?
- It has both a general and a specific meaning. In works about nuclear weapons it always specifically refers to the access to nuclear weapons technology. I've consistently qualified it with "nuclear". It is only meaningful in the narrow sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- bush track from Watson to Emu became the main line communications for the project. - main line of communications?
- Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- near the 42-kilometre (26 mi) peg?
- Hmmm? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Peg is just not a term I'm familiar with? Maybe just me. Mark83 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "just finished the construction of an oil refinery near Fremantle" when? The delay from this to cabinet approval is unclear. The reader is just asked to accept it.
- Yes. Changed to "The need to create a new work force caused a cascading series of delays." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In the whole Development section there are numerous dates without years. I found this confusing.
- Added "1956" in a couple of places to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Magee prepared Blomfield a list of stores and equipment" - A quibble, but "provided Bloomfield with a list" would be better.
- Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bores > Boreholes?
- We always refer to them as "bores" in Australia.
- WL "brackish" because I hadn't a clue what this is. User familiarity will vary massively on this based on geography.
- Oh. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Two Army skid-mounted 11-kilolitre-per-day (3,000 US gal/d; 2,500 imp gal/d) Cleaver-Brooks thermocompression distillation units" - Could this be trimmed/simplified?
- Simplified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "towed by a Caterpillar D8 tractor." Relevant?
- Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Geofex needs explanation/context.
- Changed to "plastic explosive". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Camp at 11 miles needs explanation/context.
- The 11-mile peg? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove red link to Arthur Gillespie Wilson?
- Generals are normally presumed notable. (WP:SOLDIER) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Range commander being sacked could benefit from a reference.
- The article is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "one of less than five" is clunky.
- Changed to "such a small committee". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- generally in groups of about 25 or so - is not FA-standard language.
- Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest just removing general & or so. Makes it more defintive while still clear it's an estimate.Mark83 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- LRWE not explained.
- Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was the decision to establish the Giles Weather Station a "complicating factor"?
- Expanded in this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark83 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to be impressed with the quality of this article. A few comments from review of Operation Buffalo - Operation Antler#Planning and purpose (inclusive):
- "sitting as Mosex or Buffalex as appropriate." confused me. So Mos- and Buff- refer to Mosaic and Buffalo. And then -ex is for Executive? I just feel it should be explained a bit more?
- Yes. Expanded this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In One Tree "Which was more important..." > What was more important..?
- Buffalo or Grapple . Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Conditions were suitable but "by no means ideal"." - for me this begged the question what are the factors that make it less than ideal? I can make assumptions (clear skies and no precipitation?) but a sentence setting ideal conditions would sit well here.
- Added a bit about this. The main defect was the winds. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- theoretical predictions group - just checking if this should be "Theoretical Predictions Group"? Not previously explained.
- Just the group responsible for the calculations. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The main cloud crossed the east coast about 18 hours at about > 18 hours later
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No. 49 Squadron RAF > No. 49 Squadron - as it's clear in the sentence it's about the RAF
- Be that as it may, I would prefer to keep it this way, as the default in this article is RAAF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Should TAA be spelt out? I had to click the link. If it was Trans Australia Airlines it may be better.
- Another one of those corporate abbreviations that is far better known than what it stands for. (Most people thought it stood for "Try Another Airline".) Added the name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion of fallout travelling west to east made me wonder why an eastern seaboard option wasn't chosen to avoid this. (I note at least one northern option was discounted). Not a deal breaker in terms of FA, just thinking out loud.
- Because the eastern seaboard of Australia is where the major population centres are. So they wanted the test sites in the desert to the west. The same logic as location the US test sites in the west instead of on the east coast. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion that the AWTSC reconstituted - was it disbanded? Sorry if I've missed something here.
- It continued, but as a smaller committee, with fewer functions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "The failure of the first round of Operation Grapple tests" hasn't been previously explained in this article so should it say "The first round of Operation Grapple tests was unsuccessful in demonstrating a working hydrogen bomb design which left plans for Operation Antler in disarray."? (It's a quibble but it doesn't assume any knowledge of Grapple).
- Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This section says use of barrage balloons was logistically simpler, but then says "six hours to set up a tower test and eight for a balloon test." - just seems like a contradiction?
- I think it just says that the barrage balloons had advantages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark83 (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last batch:
- You replied above "the eastern seaboard of Australia is where the major population centres are. So they wanted the test sites in the desert to the west. The same logic as location the US test sites in the west instead of on the east coast." But I've looked up maps of population density for both Australia and USA and while the latter has populations spread down the majority of its eastern seaboard, there are areas of Australia comparatively uninhabited - for example North of Cairns. Just important to stress again (as I did above) I'm just thinking out loud and this will not get in the way of my supporting FA status for the article. Also it may not be in the references and of course I'm not asking you to introduce original research.
- The Cape York Peninsula is a jungle with monsoonal rains. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The UK didn't tell Australia formally about the cobalt tests - did this cause any friction?
- The UK informed Titterton, as noted in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor trials - it's noted "Maralinga was ordered to suspend all testing, including minor trials." - I assume by Australia and not UK?
- No, by the UK. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Should curies be linked?
- Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "The UK could conduct a series of Kittens as part of Operation Buffalo." - should this be "a series of Kittens tests"?
- Changed to "kitten trials" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor prose suggestion for your consideration - "Tim experiments were concerned with the measurement of how the core..." > "Tim experiments investigated how the core..."
- Not doing that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "TM100 and TM101 areas" isn't fully explained in the text - perhaps refer to the image by way of explanation?
- They can look at the map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Vixens - "for a successful test subjects the core fuel to high explosives in the hope that it simply scatters" -- missing word(s) here?
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fallout - "Although the 1958 Operation Grapple thermonuclear tests had a measurable effect in the UK, none was detected in Australia." -- I just wonder if it should say something like "had a measurable effect in servicemen returning to the UK"?
- Not talking about service personnel. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This augured poorly for the future of Maralinga, if there was a change of government, and the 1961 Australian federal election reduced Menzies' majority to just one seat. -- Slightly clunky. Maybe just remove the first comma?
- Re-worded without comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Legacy - I wonder why the Australian government rejected the recommendation that the British government should pay all the costs of a clean up? Foreign relations must have outweighed internal politics? I note "prolonged negotiations" are mentioned in the Media coverage section. Another example of just me thinking out loud.
- Perhaps Mexico should have paid for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Maralinga: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up is a book by Alan Parkinson about the clean-up following the British nuclear tests at Maralinga, published in 2007. Parkinson, a nuclear engineer, explained that the clean-up of Maralinga " feels a bit redundant.
Maybe "Alan Parkinson's book, Maralinga: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up, explained that the clean-up of Maralinga..."
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also he's introduced in this section (as a nuclear engineer). Should this not be at his first mention in the section above?
- Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark83 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
