Talk:Manhattan Project/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Progression

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

Initial comments
This is a very good article, in my opinion. I have gone through it and done a light copy edit, section by section. Please review my changes and tweak as necessary. I have the following other comments/suggestions:
 * in the lead "Tall Boy" - is this correct? It seems to link to a British convention bomb;
 * Ooops. Should be "Little Boy". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the lead "Fat Man" is mentioned, but the term doesn't seem to be explained in the prose. In the Thin Man section, there is a photo caption that indicates that there is a difference between "Thin Man" and "Fat Man";
 * Done. Added "Fat Man". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * watch out for overlink, some examples include: "Oak Ridge" and "Belgian Congo";
 * Removed these. Also a few others. As a top-level article, it has a role of tying together a plethora of subarticles, but in the process of pulling them together, some over-linking occurred. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Hanford subsection, "Where possible, the Army allowed the crops to be harvested, but this was not always possible" - repeated word "possible" - could this perhaps be reworded?
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "went critical" - could this be explained, or wikilinked perhaps?
 * Added an explanation in the Chicago section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Electromagnetic separation section, "By April K-25 was producing enriched uranium sufficiently good to feed directly into the Beta tracks" - "sufficiently good" stands out for me here. Do you mean "of sufficient quality"?
 * Changed to "sufficiently enriched" Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Gaseous diffusion section you have wikilinked "Cost Plus Fixed Fee", but I think this could be wikilinked earlier as it seems to have been mentioned earlier;
 * Removed link. Did you spot a difference between the contract with DuPont and the one with Halliburton?
 * Yes, I was struck by that. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Gaseous diffusion section, you have both "six stage" and "six-stage";
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Weapon design section there is a Main article link to "Little Boy", but the term doesn't seem to be explained in the prose;
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Reactor design section, this might need rewording: "develop a process for hot dipping process without success" ("process...process");
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Reactor design section, "Disappointingly, most cans canned slugs initially failed the tests..." (should "cans" have a possessive apostrophe here? I'm not sure myself);
 * No, deleted "cans". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Reactor design section, I think the times should have colons per WP:MOSTIME, e.g "0300" should be "03:00";
 * Ecch. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Reactor design section, I think there is a missing word here but I'm not sure exactly what it should be "in which the reactor had 1,500 arranged in a circle..." (1,500 what?);
 * tubes. Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki section, why was Kyoto removed from the list of targets? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added "on the grounds of its historical and religious significance" Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these responses. Looks good now. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot  c Alt text
 * there are a few disambig links found by the tools which should be fixed: ;
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ext links largely okay, but one reports as possibly broken: ;
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * images mainly lacking Alt text. It is not a GA requirement, but you might consider adding it in later. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * All issues dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No issues.


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


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Lots of recent changes and given its visibility possibly a target for some drive-by edits, but nothing that consistutes an edit war, IMO.


 * 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':
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Excellent work with what is a very big topic. Passes GA in my opinion. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)