Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manhattan Project/archive1

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.

Closed -- no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Project

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... A techno-military article about the famous Manhattan Project, which developed the first nuclear weapons. This article is a top-level one, rich in links to its many sub-articles. Like the project, the article covers many administrative, military and engineering subjects. I hope that the most important sub-articles can one day be lifted to form a featured topic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mention the attempts at gaining intellegence on the German nuclear program, but where similar measures taken on the Japanese nuclear program? You mention the Japanese programs existance very breifly but give no further details.XavierGreen (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article notes that "It was believed that the Japanese atomic program was not far advanced because Japan had little access to uranium ore" Nothing much was therefore done about it until after the war. The linked article provides the details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but was the Manhatten Project "charged with gathering intelligence" on the Japanese program as well? If not it should be stated as such in the text, it currently does not mention that nothing was done about it only that the program was rudimentary. If it was charged with gathering intellegence on it then further details should be given.XavierGreen (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dabs, external links check out, all images have alt text; (no action required)
    • Citation checker reveals one error ({{harvnb|Schwartz|1998}} - error was "Multiple references contain the same content")
    • "The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb, before Germany or Japan." Maybe "The Manhattan Project was the codename for an Allied project" or something similar (for clarity)?
    • This sentence is a little repetitive: "Atomic bombs were used in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (atomic twice);
    • These two sentences are a little repetitive: "Their calculations indicated that it was within an order of magnitude of ten kilograms, which was small enough to be carried by a bomber of the day. Their March 1940 Frisch–Peierls memorandum resulted in the setting up of the British MAUD Committee, which concluded that..." (both start with 'their'), perhaps reword?
      • Re-worded. Also changed "MAUD" to "Maud" as it was a codename, not an abbreviation,
    • "in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor..." maybe "in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor..." for clarity.;
    • There is some over linking, e.g. University of California, Berkeley;
    • This sentence seems a little clumsy to me: "However, the British did not have United States' manpower or resources and soon fell behind."
      • Changed to "However, Britain did not have the manpower or resources of the United States, and despite its early and promising start, the British project soon fell behind its American counterpart." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • These sentences are a little repetitive: "Construction was contracted to the M. M. Sundt Company of Tucson, Arizona, with Willard C. Kruger and Associates of Santa Fe, New Mexico as architect and engineer. Construction commenced in December 1942." (both start with 'construction');
    • This sentence seems like its missing an 'and', "Various physical methods were considered for uranium enrichment, most of these were carried out at Oak Ridge.";
    • Grammer seems a little off in this sentence: "Work commenced on 9 July 1944 in September, S-50 began partial operation." Maybe just add a semi-colon after 1944?
    • I think this may be a typo: "There were pickled to remove dirt" should it be "They were pickled"?;
    • "retrieved eleven tons of ore from WIFO", IMO this should be "11 tons" per WP:MOSNUM; and
      • Done. Glad you understand "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the punctuation may be incorrect here: "About 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30% of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured". Maybe "About 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30% of the population of Hiroshima, were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured." (missing comma I think).Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A1 comments, mostly good, work required Wow, this is a biggie, good work getting the quality up on this one, it must be a vandalism / kook magnet! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • References:
  • Notes:
    • When citing works in an edited work, the individual author and section should be given, even if only in short citations, "Ahnfeldt, Arnold Lorentz, ed. (1966)," ;
    • Author, Article title, Italics for Journal as per your style? ""Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review, Vol. 25, Nos. 3 and 4, 2002". ornl.gov. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev25-34/chapter1.shtml. Retrieved 2010-03-09."
    • Full stop before following clause? "Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 108–112 The allusion here is to the Italian navigator Christopher Columbus, who reached the Caribbean in 1492."
    • Link didn't work, Fain deserves a capitalised name, "Ruhoff & fain 1962, pp. 3–9"
    • Consider drawing your multiple author short citation style closer to your long citation style by replacing ", , &" with "; ; ;"?
    • "U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: …" bad full stop in citation later on, it is right next to a comma
    • "Schwartz 1998" no page reference given
    • Broken links, "Serber 1943, p. 21" ((No such work in bibliography, wrong date?)) ; "Berstein 1976, pp. 206–207" ((No such work, misspelt author?)) ; "Bird 2005, p. 228" ((No such work, failed to list second author?)) ; "Jones 1987, pp. 67–71" ((Just seems broken)) ; "Waltham 1998, pp. 8–9" ((Just plain broken?)) ; "Groves & 1962 78–82" ((No second author on this one?)) ; "Baker, Hecker & Harbur 1983, pp. 144–145" ((Just doesn't work))
    • Some of the broken links may be date related, they're dated "Winter/Summer 19XX" or "March 19XX"

Comments Coming soon. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs fixin':

Problem:

Oppose per discussion at WT:MHC#Copy editors. The problem is that there's still so much to do, and we're out of time. Of course, I'm responsible for part of this, because I started late and the review took me a while. But per the linked discussion, regardless of "who started it", there's a downside to letting MILHIST A-class articles get to FAC if they wind up hurting our reputation among the reviewers there. There are a lot of problems here; the three biggest are that Hawkeye hasn't so far started helping with any of the problems I've pointed out (such as commas), and "doesn't use Chicago", and is reverting many of my edits ... and in my judgment, is making the wrong call on every one. I'm not always right, of course, but given my success as a copy editor so far on Wikipedia, it isn't likely that I'm wrong every time, either. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the points raised have been dealt with. Saying "needs more commas" is not helpful.
Here is an example of a reverted copy edit:
  • Dank: The scientists at the Berkeley conference envisioned creating plutonium in nuclear reactors when uranium-238 atoms absorbed neutrons which had been emitted from fissioning uranium-235 atoms.
  • Hawkeye7: The scientists at the Berkeley conference envisioned creating plutonium in nuclear reactors where uranium-238 atoms absorbed neutrons which had been emitted from fissioning uranium-235 atoms.
"In a nuclear reactor" is a place, therefore we need the locative "where" and not the temporal "when". I could have said: "during a nuclear reaction when" but this would miss the point of the sentence, which is about the need to build nuclear reactors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That edit came after my claim that your previous reversions weren't helpful. I stand by the claim. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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/Manhattan_Project/archive1&oldid=415673705"