Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Quebec Agreement

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) 09:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Quebec Agreement

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Quebec Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

First of three articles on the treaties between the US and UK over nuclear weapons. This is the first, and best known, the wartime agreement to merge Tube Alloys with the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments:

"The Quebec Agreement was an agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States outlining the terms for the coordinated development of the basic science and advanced engineering related to nuclear energy, and, specifically nuclear weapons during World War II."
I'm not entirely sure what that statement means. Did the agreement cover only development during WWII, or is it simply saying it was agreed to during WWII? It can be read either way, and I'd like some clarity. (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The agreement was not a purely wartime one. I wanted to work World War II into the description. Moved to the second sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Quebec Agreement stipulated"... yikes, ROS. Sentance split at "and it gave"?
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Even before its report was completed" - para split here?
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"up to us."[32] Bush and Conant" - para split?
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and for producing uranium metal £1,500,000" - "and another £1,500,000 for producing uranium metal"
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"what they discussed.. Most" - double period.
checkY well spotted. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In the United States, there was a furore when the Joint Committee" - isn't that the same as the statement one sentence earlier?
checkY Yes. Deleted.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"intense pressure on Truman to drop this provision" - wasn't it already dropped in the first para?
Yes! But Congress was not informed of the 15 November 1945 agreement. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entire section could use a little TLC, I find it difficult to parse. Perhaps following chronological order as closely as possible might help.

Suggestions welcome, but the section is in strict chronological order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, nice work, Hawkeye. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Please structure the description section with c:Template:Information. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done, but I don't see any requirement on Commons to use the template, or any requirement for us to comply if there was one. I don't like making changes on Commons, and per WP:CONEXCEPT, we cannot require them here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for clarification. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the others look good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • Great job with this article. Not much to nitpick about, I have to say.
  • The Tizard Mission isn't introduced, same for the Tizard Committee. Suggest a short sentence explanation for both.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Lord Cherwell, as Frederick Lindemann was now known", as we have another Lindemann involved
    checkY Done. Charles had an obit in the New York Times, but he was only a brigadier, and does not have an entry in the ODNB. He is best known today for the Lindemann Trust Fellowships, which allow postdoctoral scientists to pursue research in the US. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Afterwards, Roosevelt and Churchill spent some time together beforehand at Roosevelt's estate in Hyde Park, New York". Afterwards and beforehand seem to contradict one another here?
    checkY I think what you mean here is that my oxymorons are mighty weak. Deleted "beforehand". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sentence that begins "Bohr was not regarded as a security risk..." seems out of place. Why was Bohr not being a security risk relevant here?
    checkY It's what most of the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire is about; you can read it on the right. Removed this bit, so it just reads "Most of this dealt with Bohr's thoughts on international control" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 3 April 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/Quebec_Agreement&oldid=833982426"