Talk:British hydrogen bomb programme/GA1

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

Reviewer: I'll have a go at this interesting article. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * Overall, this is an exceptionally readable article which provides insight into a secret history. The article is very close to GA status; I have noted only some small points, mainly stylistic.


 * As a general point, all captions should explain something, and be wikilinked to enable readers to follow up key terms and people shown.


 * Thus for example "Right hand man: Cherwell (foreground) with Churchill" should say what Lord Cherwell's role or position was, and link to his article. He doesn't seem to be wikilinked in the text or be glossed with his role on first appearance, either.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not wikilink Operation Grapple and Hydrogen bomb in lead image caption.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tube Alloys should be in Title Case in caption.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red Beard links to the wrong target.
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * However, H. G. Wells had suggested a radioactive bomb, not a nuclear explosion.
 * His version exploded continuously rather than all at once; but he called it an "atomic bomb", and the name stuck. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I've taken the liberty of adding a gloss to this effect.


 * Design concepts images: first caption is a run-on: needs "spheres. Tritium " (separating the sentences).
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also don't see why the 3 Design concepts images need to be so large. 200 x 200 will work fine and is closer to the standard image size.
 * ✅ There's a compromise between the size of the images and the text. Also, I have the default image size set to 300px on my system. It's the maximum, but is still very small. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Gaining access to it was the principal reason the Americans reopened the negotiations resulting in the 1948 Modus Vivendi," could be better worded. Perhaps "The principal reason the Americans reopened the negotiations was to gain access to it. This resulted..."
 * ✅ Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "concluded that the Kermadec Islands,[130] which lie about 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) northeast of New Zealand." needs "were suitable" (or similar.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "They are part of New Zealand" requires "were" for the sense. That they still are is of no consequence here.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "of Operation "Grapple"." Why the double quotes? you don't use them elsewhere.
 * Because I am referring to the code name, rather than the operation. Moved the open quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tom, Dick and Harry. A diagram showing the intended behaviour would be very helpful here (not I guess a GA requirement). It would show Tom (fission bomb) with an arrow labelled "implodes" to Dick (a 2nd fission "service" which in turn implodes Harry, a fusion device.
 * It would be nice, but a bit beyond my ability to diagram. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe the diagramming fit will seize me, in which case ...


 * "The yield was very disappointing 300 kilotonnes of TNT " needs punctuation, either a comma or a dash before the 300.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "and it is the largest British" would be better as "and it remains the largest".
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "the United States, Soviet Union and United Kingdom" should have "the" before both Soviet and United Kingdom.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "a series of meetings meeting " - chop the "meeting".
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act)" should say "The McMahon Act".
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In the Castle Bravo image caption, why not say that it was more than twice as powerful as expected.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't we wikilink the Jetter's Cycle caption, at least with "chain reaction" and possibly with deuterium, lithium, tritium. Perhaps "loop chain reaction" needs explanation if it means more than the ordinary kind.
 * ✅ Unfortunately, we have no article on Jetter's cycle, or for that matter, on Ulrich Jetter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No referencing issues.


 * All images are licensed on Commons.
 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your prompt and helpful responses. I'm delighted to award GA status now, and I wish you safe passage through FAC. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)