Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/K-25

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

K-25

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Featured article candidates/K-25/archive1

Next in the series of articles on the Manhattan Project facilities Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: not a lot stood out to me. I made a few minor edits and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"File:K-25 (7609929206).jpg": the date parameter on the image description page should be the date the image was created, not uploaded;
"File:HD.30.359. (10427116025).jpg": same as above
"File:HD.30.360. (10427116085).jpg": as above
"File:HD.30.375. (10427417193).jpg": as above
"File:HD.30.374. (10427415313).jpg": as above
"File:S50plant.jpg": needs a date
Y Added approximate dates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if potentially the article should be titled "K-25 project" - not a warstoper, just a musing. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name K-25 went through a kind of linguistic drift, referring at various times to the product, the project, the facility, the site and the building. The article covers them all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a few minor cmts:
- All tool checks look fine (i.e. external links work, no dabs, no duplicate links, no issues with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [1] etc.)
- Minor inconsistency in presentation of percentages, see "that the 1% difference in molecular weights" vs "to enrich to 90 percent" (see MOS:PERCENT). Y
- "Chemical researchers at the SAM Laboratories studied the fluorocarbons..." Should this be "...Chemical researchers at the SAM Laboratories studied fluorocarbons..." instead? Y
- "...recommended that the K-25 plant would be operated by Union Carbide...", perhaps more simply just: "...recommended that the K-25 plant be operated by Union Carbide..." (suggestion only) Y
- "...Since then demolition work has been carried out by DOE's..." I'm assuming DOE is Department of Energy? This abbrev probably needs to be introduced as I couldn't see it anyway prior to this sentence. Y
- Slightly repetitive wording here: "...Complete demolition of the K-25 facility was expected to be completed..." (complete and completed - perhaps reword?). Y
  All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with no edits or amendments LavaBaron (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.