Talk:Operation Sandstone/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs • count ) 10:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Operation Sandstone was the third American a series of nuclear weapon tests carried out at Enewetak Atoll at the Pacific Proving Grounds in 1948. They were the third American series of test, followed following Crossroads and preceded preceding Ranger. They were carried out at Enewetak Atoll at the Pacific Proving Grounds, and . ''They differed greatly" It's up to you if you want to change it; it's only a suggestion.
 * just wondering, isn't "series" a collective noun, in which case it is considered singular? The para starts off with "Operation Sandstone was the third American series of nuclear weapon tests in 1948", but the next sentence reads "They [which refers to the tests themselves] followed..."
 * I see caps "Nuclear Weapons" and "Implosion-type"
 * "T Division" and "J-Division" who are they?
 * where are some of the Imperial units?
 * "25 curies (a measurement of radioactivity) of polonium"

Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC) All issues should be resolved now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Re-worded the lead.
 * 2) Consistently referred to the tests in such a way as to always be plural.
 * 3) De-capitated.
 * 4) Added explanations of the two divisions of LANL. There were many more of course.
 * 5) Had not thought about imperial. Everything was conducted in metric back in 1948. Added some conversion templates.
 * 6) Linked curies.

Second Opinion
So what do you want a second opinion on? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've inspected the article and found no obvious problems. I'd just like the same assurance from others who might have more critical eyes.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 22:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess I'm the second opinion. For the table in the lead, if there are no notes then there shouldn't be a notes field. Images seem fine, references seem fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you close the review then? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please move the pic (File:Sandstone HO3S.jpg) under "Ships" to below ? There seems to be a big blank gap between the list and the pic. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: