Talk:British contribution to the Manhattan Project/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 06:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: no dead links (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: two duplicate links to be removed:
 * James B. Conant
 * Soviet Union
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "The British contribution to the Manhattan Project involved participation in most aspects of the Manhattan Project...", I can see why you have chosen this wording, but I wonder if there is a way of writing this without using "Manhattan Project" twice in the same sentence? (suggestion only, I agree its desirable to link "Manhattan" project in the lead and to use the title of the article in the first sentence so I actually can't think of a better way of doing this than what you have currently. I mention it only to point it out in case you can think of a way of improving it.)
 * ✅ Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Another mission, led by Mark Oliphant...", perhaps just "Oliphant" per WP:SURNAME.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Typo here? "and participated in Operation Crossroads nuclear tests in 1946...", perhaps "and participated in the Operation Crossroads nuclear tests in 1946..."
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Missing word here? "Thomson, at Imperial College London...", perhaps "Thomson, at the Imperial College London..."
 * No, that is correct. See Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "On 30 July 1942, Sir John Anderson advised Churchill that..." This is the first mention of Churchill in the body of the article (he is introduced in the lead though). Perhaps formally introduce with title, full name and wikilink here per WP:SURNAME (you do this later)?
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Minor inconsistency in presentation of ranks: consider "Major-General Hastings Ismay" vs "Major General Wilhelm D. Styer" (or is this deliberate due to some Brit Com vs US style consideration I'm unaware of?)
 * ✅ Yes, the hyphen is BrEng; I have used it everywhere now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure this sentence is quite right: "It was agreed that if the Technical Committee could act without consulting the Combined Policy Committee whenever its decision was unanimous." Consider instead: "It was agreed that the Technical Committee could act without consulting the Combined Policy Committee whenever its decision was unanimous."
 * ✅ Deleted "if". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "...and it fell to Appleton, Anderson and Cherwell...", who was Appleton? He isn't formally introduced in the article until later.
 * ✅ Moved up. Appleton is often confused with Sir Humphrey Appleby. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Missing word here? "...who had worked him on the cavity magnetron...", consider instead "who had worked with him on the cavity magnetron..."
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a typo? "Peggy Tetterton, a trained pysics...", I assume you mean "physics"?
 * ✅ Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Possible typo in a quote here: ""never at any time did I have anything to do with the fission bomb once I went to Loas Alamos." (specifically Loas).
 * ✅ Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "...the head of the British Raw Materials Mission in Washington...", should this be "Washington, D.C."?
 * ✅ Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Missing word here? "...and Denis Rickett to draw up communiqué....", should it be "and Denis Rickett to draw up the communiqué..."?
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a little repetitive: "The terms of the Quebec Agreement remained secret, but senior members of Congress were horrified when they discovered its terms..." (e.g. "terms"). Perhaps reword?
 * ✅ Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In the refs I think this page range has a typo: "Gowing 1964, pp. 271–2751." I assume it should be page 275.
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this page number correct: "Szasz 1992, p. 1501."? (its just a lot of pages for a book that's all). Happy if it is of course.
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR that I could see.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I'm no expert on the topic but the article seems to cover all major points without going into unnecessary detail.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues I could see.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Images seem to be free / PD and most have the req'd information / templates.
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Article looks in very good shape to me, mostly only a few MOS issues / typos to sort out.
 * On a side note how ironic does it seem now that Peierls and Frisch couldn't work on the British radar project but were allowed to conduct research into atomic weapons? Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Very. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Those changes look fine, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)