Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/MAUD Committee

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

MAUD Committee

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

MAUD Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The origins of the British nuclear weapons project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: needs minor touchups only.

  • Ahhh, that first ROS in the lede. My eyes, my eyes! Suggest removing mention of WWII and reorganizing this entirely.
    Help! I don't know what ROS means! I can't find it in Wikipedia:WikiSpeak Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure, but perhaps "run on sentence"? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also suggest that the first para of an article on MAUD actually be about MAUD, not some other article. The 3rd para would be a nice basis.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In April 1932" - sort of off topic, as is the next statement. I think this could cut directly to "Then, in December 1938" (although without the Then)
    Deleted. It was mostly to show that Britain was a leder in nuclear physics back then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The government also placed" - separate para.
  • "separation, so the project would get a head start" - "separation, which would give the project a head start"
  • "to Liverpool. The universities were reimbursed" - para break.
  • "university funds. The government also" - and here.
  • "enemy aliens. The MAP gradually" - here too.
    I don't see the logic here. The first paragraph deals with financial arrangement, the second with personnel arrangements. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Heinz London. They concentrated " - and here
  • " of power. He estimated" - and here

- sorry, I was repeatedly interrupted and it continues. I'll be back! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Support: I made a few minor WS and arrangement edits, and added a link to shake, which better explains the concept there. Good to go! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I made a few tweaks here and there. Overall, the article looks pretty good to me. These are my edits: [1] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, I'm not sure about the licensing of a couple of these images. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nikkimaria, it isn't clear to me whether you are satisfied with the image licensing or something else needs doing. Could you confirm? Thanks as always, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Looks like all three of the images mentioned above have been removed from the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. I should have checked... Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with the Sir Mark Oliphant image; I just changed the tag. I removed it because it now looked odd as the only image of a person. However, we need another review to check the ones that I added in their place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 They all look ok, but given it was secret when made, when was the MAUD report actually published? Perhaps a crown copyright licence should be used here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The MAUD Committee report was published by Margaret Gowing in Britain and Atomic Energy (1964). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • All of the sources seem to be of high quality and reliable. I searched for other academic papers regarding the committee, and didn't find anything other than a 1993 article by Gowing in the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science DOI: 10.1098/rsnr.1993.0007, but it looks from the abstract to be mainly about Chadwick rather than the committee per se. Also in terms of recent scholarship, the 2011 book The First War of Physics: The Secret History of the Atom Bomb, 1939-1949 by Jim Baggott seems to have a bit about the committee. Worth a look before FAC perhaps? Good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 13 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/MAUD_Committee&oldid=855541872"