Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smyth Report/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Smyth Report

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Smyth Report, the first official administrative history written on the development of the first atomic weapons. The image of the book is that of my own copy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN13: this is formatted with the title as a second author
  • FN5: think it would make more sense to cite the Grove foreword specifically here, rather than the report generally
  • Can you double-check publication details for Coleman and Smith? You've given the two the same page range in the same publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Wiki-Gnomes tried to use the sfn template for web pages, which doesn't work too well. Fixed.
  2. I'm not sure what you mean here. Groves's forward is on p. v of Smyth, just like it says.
  3. Coleman had the wrong page range. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re point 2: yes, I don't doubt that. What I'm suggesting is something along these lines:
Groves, Leslie (1945). "Foreword". In Smyth, Henry DeWolf (ed.). Atomic Energy for Military Purposes; the Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb under the Auspices of the United States Government, 1940–1945. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-1722-9.
simply for precision. If you'd prefer not to that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • In leads in my articles, I've copied a sentence or two from the text without any hesitation ... but I think the following probably won't fly at FAC, with the part in the text coming just three paragraphs after the lead:
  • In the lead: "The Smyth Report served two functions. First, it was to be the official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons. Second, it served as an indicator for other scientists as to what information was declassified. Anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available, such as the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
  • In the text: "The Report was to serve two functions. First, it was to be the public official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs ... and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons, in particular nuclear fission and the nuclear chain reaction. Second, it served as a barometer for other scientists as to what information was declassified—anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available in declassified literature, such as much of the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
  • "British Scientific Mission to Manhattan Project": Is that the official title, without the "the"?
  • "easier to imagine unexpected printing problems resulting in himself and his workers returning from summer vacation to find themselves locked out of a plant filled with top secret material": Give that one another shot, please.
  • "had text added paragraph 12.18": not sure what's missing
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
Read and tweaked prose per request by Hawk.
Sources look good. I did not do a spot check. auntieruth (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - 2 images with problems all OK (fixed Russian cover info)

  • File:Richard_Tolman_and_Henry_D._Smyth.jpg - do you have a page number for the source here? The PDF has 650+ pages and loads with like 1 page per minute. Also, author is "US Army", but PD is "United States Department of Energy". Is one of it wrong?
  • The Russian cover (last image) - this one has several problems:
  • Date should be date of the book (1946).
  • The author field should name the original author and possibly the editor of the translation: G. Ivanova (unless Google translate screwed something up here), the full Russian publication info from Wikisource is "Г. Д. Смит. Атомная энергия для военных целей. Официальный отчёт о разработке атомной бомбы под наблюдением правительства США. Перевод с английского под редакцией Г. Н. Иванова. Государственное транспортное железнодорожное издательство. Москва — 1946", translated as: "original title" plus "Translation from English, edited by G. Ivanova. Public transport rail publishing. Moscow - 1946".
  • The cover is not "own work" and can't be released under CC, neither by Russian Wikisource nor by us (unless the copyright owner would have released it first). A possible license could be Commons:template:PD-text for non-original texts with simple geometric shapes.
  • Optional, upload date to Russian Wikisource and original uploader should be mentioned (similar to en-Wiki -> Commons transfers).
  • Optional, but an English filename (like Smyth_Report_Russian_translation_cover.jpg) would be a lot easier to handle (and to link).

Support Comments -- recusing myself from FAC coord duties, copyedited as usual, other points:

  • I think the first sentence would read better as "The Smyth Report is the common name of an administrative history written by physicist Henry DeWolf Smyth about the Manhattan Project, the Allies' effort to develop the atomic bomb during World War II."
  • Also in the lead, the third para follows so naturally from the second that I feel they could easily be merged into one -- just a thought though, I feel less strongly about this than about rewriting the first sentence.
  • "In the fall of 1943..." -- I don't have an issue with seasonal references in ancient or medieval histories but can we not avoid them here?
  • "The stated purpose of the Smyth Report was to provide sufficient information to citizens to permit them to make sensible policy decisions regarding the new atomic weapons." -- the only citation following this is Smyth, after the quote from his preface that follows, so I presume this is just to summarise the quote. Perhaps it's pedantic but I'd prefer to see a secondary source cited for the purpose, otherwise why not just quote Smyth without editorialising and let the readers make up their minds?
  • Similarly, "This contrasted somewhat with what Groves wrote in the foreword" -- the only citation that follows is Groves himself after the quote so I assume it's your interpretation of Groves' words. Again, unless a secondary source highlights the discrepancy, I'd expect to just see Groves' words stand by themselves, introduced by simply "Groves wrote in the foreword:".
  • "Smyth passed security clearances necessary to visit project sites, access documents and to discuss the work with the research personnel. He also approved Smyth's request to hire another Princeton physicist, Lincoln G. Smith, as a research assistant." -- something missing here; the first sentence mentions Smyth alone, so who approved Smyth's request for Smith?
  • Aside from the above, structure and level of detail seem fine.
  • No duplicate or dab links.
  • Happy to go with Nikki's and Joe's source and image checks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review! Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. I tend to concentrate on ease of reading... EddieHugh (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EddieHugh (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Eddie, I checked the first 20 or so things above, and your recommendations are generally really good ... I hope you enjoy reviewing at FAC and keep coming back ... I see from your talk page that you're also proficient at writing. Just a few points:
    • Idiomatic (in this context) usually means "peculiar to or characteristic of a given language" or "characterized by proficient use of idiomatic expressions".
      • I was going for "especially those [constructions, etc.] considered nonstandard or colloquial" and "established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from the meanings of the individual words" (OED). EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we can probably insist at FAC that writers avoid inapt or mixed metaphors. You seem to be asking for more than this ... could you clarify where you draw the line? For instance, is it okay to write "draw the line"? What's wrong with "could not fathom"?
      • It's hazy. My starting point is the reader's perspective and I don't assume that that person's English is excellent. I'm fond of "fathom", but it is old-fashioned. One question on where to draw the line (on drawing the line and others) is: Why use a word / phrase that many readers will not understand, when there are readily understandable alternatives? EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On your second bullet point, see MOS:REDIR: "The advantage of redirects over piped links is that they allow us to determine which pages link to the given topic using Special:WhatLinksHere". - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough; I think I was told to do it by one GA reviewer. Thanks. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done a few mini reviews here. I get put off a bit because articles appear to be passed once some basic checks and proof reading have been done, or because nominators expect reviewers to drag an inadequate article up to a reasonable standard. I might specialize on one aspect, as others do; perhaps on ease of reading, although I don't relish the confrontational facets that surface when (in my view) an article is fundamentally flawed and nominators want a list of faults (in the proof reading style) to correct. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyway – my responses are indented and signed above. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding nominators expecting you to do the work ... some wikiprojects and individuals get it and some don't, you'll find over time who you're most happy working with. As frustrating as FAC can be sometimes ... if you like looking at prose, then reviewing at FAC can be a very satisfying experience. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Maralia

  • I fixed a couple of very minor typos.
  • Can you clarify what flavor of English is intended? I see both 'organisation' and 'organization', and 'World War II' and 'endeavor' but dmy dates. I'm not fussed about the Engvar per se; mostly just confused.
    It should be in US English. I've switched the dates to mdy because that was the form used in the Smyth Report (and, after some checking, was the article's original form back in 2004). It sticks out a bit, because the Manhattan Project normally used US military format (dmy). Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a single PhD student's dissertation really the only significant modern analysis that links the Smyth Report's narrow focus to the public perception that the Manhattan Project was mostly about physics? That seems a bit lightweight as the sole evidence for a conclusion stated in the lead of the article. Surely there is more out there on this?
    It all tracks back to this thesis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'm glad you've gone to the source—but can we also offer some sign of academic consensus on the point? Maralia (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I've added some words from Professor Robert P. Crease from Stony Brook University and Professor Jon Agar, professor of of Science and Technology Studies at University College London. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noted that you've cited a blog, and wanted to comment that I'm satisfied that it meets WP:RS as it's written by a well qualified scientist who is meticulous in citing his sources.
    Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tidy little article and I enjoyed reading it. Thank you! Maralia (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Smyth_Report/archive1&oldid=640157884"