Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/S-50 (Manhattan Project)

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

S-50 (Manhattan Project)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

S-50 (Manhattan Project) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Manhattan Project's isotope separation project using thermal diffusion. Passed over in favour of more practical methods, it eventually played an important part. The article was deleted back in 2006, but subsequently restored. I recently expanded it and took it to GA. When I went looking for images, I found many of the ones you see here on Commons, but uncategorised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As this recently passed GA it's a struggle to find much room for improvement. Grammar and sourcing look good. The article is broad, impeccably referenced and well-illustrated. There are no broken external links or DAB issues. The only thing I'll say is the article could benefit from adding ALT tags to the images. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • the Army and Navy also played a part. Army and navy aren't proper nouns, so in this context I'm pretty sure the MoS would have it as "army and navy" not "Army and Navy"
    No, they are proper nouns. Here, the United States Army and Navy are meant. It would be different if were were referring to a generic navy, but here we are referring to the specific one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you're referring to a particular army and navy, but we only treat them as proper nouns when we refer to them by their full title. I double-checked the MoS and that is indeed the guidance of MOS:MILTERMS (point 2). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources do it differently, but far be it from me to argue with the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally find arguing with the MoS time-consuming and futile, even if I happen to mostly agree with it on this point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was able to achieve some separation That doesn't sound like he was entirely successful, but the next sentence has him moving onto uranium, so presumably he was satisfied with the results he got?
    Added that he achieved a separation factor of 1.2. The point is though that there is a big difference between potassium and uranium. The difference between the weights of the isotopes of potassium (41 / 39 ≈ 1.05) is much greater than that of uranium (238 / 235 ≈ 1.01). Note also that uranium enriched by 20 per cent is only enriched to 0.86 per cent uranium-235; you need 12,500 percent to get to 90 per cent urnamium-235 (HEU). Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • albeit on his advice, that the Navy was to be excluded from the Manhattan Project On Bush's advice? What was the rationale for excluding the navy (a footnote might be the best way to deal with that)? And navy shouldn't be a proper noun (same throughout).
    The article already explains that Bowen and Bush did not get along because Bowen felt that OSRD was diverting funds away from the NRL. Added that Bush preferred dealing with Stimson. When it comes to Roosevelt, I recall a story about how one person came in to see him, and Roosevelt listened to his arguments and said: "You're absolutely right." This was followed by a meeting with another man who gave contrary arguments, and Roosevelt listened to his arguments and told him: "You're absolutely right." Then Eleanor came in and said that the two men had said completely contradictory things, and they couldn't possibly both be right. And Roosevelt said: "Eleanor, you're absolutely right." Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sites were canvassed, and it was decided to build a new pilot plant at the Naval Boiler and Turbine Laboratory (NBTL) at the Philadelphia Navy Yard,[37] where there was space, steam and cooling water, and, perhaps most important of all, engineers with experience with high-pressure steam,[38] and the cost was estimated at only $500,000. That's a bit of a run-on sentence
    Split sentence in two. My sister, by the way, is the master of the run-on sentence, making them seem quite natural. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another fine article. You're not leaving me a lot to criticise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:05, 3 April 2017 (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/S-50_(Manhattan_Project)&oldid=1143876902"