Talk:Hanford Engineer Works

B class review
So far, I have only completed reviewing the following sections. Djmaschek (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC) B class. All done! There were remarkably few errors. Here are some comments. Djmaschek (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC) See the union vs. local issue above. Djmaschek (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * Contractor selection
 * Site selection
 * Land acquisition
 * Richland, paragraph 5: "...International Brotherhood of Teamsters threatened to ban the use of union drivers, citing safety issues." (I'm confused. Why would the Teamsters - a union - want to ban the use of union drivers? Is it possible that they wanted to ban local drivers?)
 * Union drivers. ie refusing to drive them. What I would call a black ban. Not sure what the American term would be. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Richland, last paragraph: "pumping from the Colorado River" > "Columbia River". (Since I'm certain this was wrong, I made the change already.)
 * That's right. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Distinct topic?
What is the difference between the topic of this article and that of Hanford Site?

They seem to heavily overlap. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 00:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is a subarticle. Hanford Site covers the entire history of the site from ancient times to the present day. This article only covers its wartime role as part of the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Overprecise inflation
Most or all of the "equivalent to" dollar figures are ridiculously overprecise, but I don't know how to fix that given the particular inflation template used. EEng 03:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do. The template uses the precision of the input, I take it that you favour rounding the output? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First, most (but not all) of the calculations should use the "US-GDP" index, not "US"; I've fixed those.On the original point: Saying that $5,148,462 is equivalent to $55,151,443 in 2022 is just ridiculous -- the tables used in the calculations are only three and four places themselves (e.g. open Template:Inflation/US-GDP/dataset for editing). And even if more places made technical sense, there's still the question of the reader's ability to make use of extra precision. So let's say $55,150,000 were formally justified (which it's not) -- how does the 50,000 (which is 0.1% of the overall figure) tell the reader anything? Same, really, for the 100,000, which is 2% of the total. Such overprecision blunts our readers' attention while enlightening them not at all. If this was an article I was writing for some other venue, I'd just go with $55 million, but to err on the side of not losing information, I think "$55.1 million" is right. If I don't hear any objection soon, I'll make such adjustments throughout. (I figured out how to do it.) EEng 18:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection. I was uncertain where, when and whether to use US-GDP, postponed it until work on the article was finished, and then forgot about it. For R&D projects it's use was obvious, but not so much here. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything but stuff like salaries and rents should be US-GDP. EEng 07:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That the Army accounted for expenses to the penny is one of the themes of the article, ending with the request that Dupont, which spent millions, pay back 33 cents of its one dollar fee. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm actually aware of that, and there may be a place where a bit of a wink might be given to that. (Not for this article, but I seem to recall that when the Pu was handed over from one branch of the project to another, someone had to sign a receipt giving "Estimated value: $273,983,455.58" or something -- that would be great to include!.) But in general, we might say somewhere that everything was tallied to the penny, and certainly the 33 cents is fun, but in general we should still round both original and inflated figures, unless there's some special interest in the exact number. But rounding the original figures is more trouble than I'm willing to go to right now. EEng 07:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Better wording needed
"The separation plants contained a separation building, where the separation was conducted..." Would it be possible to eliminate the three-fold repetition of the word "separation"? John (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure. Re-phrased. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Nicely done. John (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)