Talk:Trinity (nuclear test)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 20:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Overall the article is very good. It uses the sources I would expect, covers the subject well and is structured appropriately. The images used are high quality and the manual of style is followed throughout. The only problems I see are in terms of prose clarity and concision. I've listed individual issues below in a line-by-line fashion. It seems like a lot, but that's mainly for two reasons. First, the article is long (as it should be) so any close reading is going to generate a lot of comments. Second, rather than say "I think this section can be improved", I've tried to offer specific suggestions and comments so editors can address them quickly and easily. I think that with some concerted copyediting this article should be a GA pretty quickly.

style/layout

 * "The railroad siding at Pope, New Mexico..." wikilink railroad siding to Siding (rail)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

images

 * You may want to update the description page for File:Trinity - Jumbo brought to site.jpg to use the commons template for source/etc. Not a GA requirement but is helpful for internationalization. Ditto File:Trinity tower.jpg, File:Trinity-ground-zero-men-in-crater.jpg and File:Trinity - Jumbo after test.jpg
 * Image licenses all check out. Almost all pd-gov, some uploaded work w/ an appropriate license.

lede

 * "The new test site, named the White Sands Proving Ground..." why is it a "new" test site?
 * ✅ deleted "new". Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * the portion in the lede about the test site could better be moved to the end. This way we have the intro paragraph, a discussion of the device, the test, then the disposition of the test site brings us up to the current day.
 * ✅ Shuffled the sentences around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We appear very certain in the lede with our attribution of Trinity to a Donne poem via Oppenheimer, but substantially less so in the body.
 * I'm open to suggestions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

background

 * The abbreviated summary of the Manhattan project seems oddly summarized. We mention the Frisch–Peierls memorandum directly after a comment on the perceived infeasability of nuclear weapons. I agree their work on the fissile material was important and should be mentioned but I'm not sure we're situating it in the right way.
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., became the director of the Project..." is the comma necessary?
 * In AusEng we wouldn't need the full stop. I put it in the USEng form that Groves used. According to the Chicago Manual of Style, USEng changed to not require the first comma in 1993, but the second comma is still required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "It turned out that it has relatively complicated physics, chemistry, and metallurgy..." this sentence is a bit awkward. First, we say "relatively" then later say "compared to other elements". Second, why not say "physical, chemical and mettalurgical properties"?
 * ✅ done Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "In April 1944, physicist Emilio Segrè at Los Alamos received the first sample of reactor-bred plutonium from the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge, and discovered that it was not as pure as cyclotron-produced plutonium by a significant degree. Specifically, the longer the plutonium remained irradiated inside the reactor—which is necessary for high yields of the metal—the greater the content of the plutonium-240 isotope." I think these sentences are working too hard. That is to say if we mention that they were looking for Pu-239 but the process of breeding it led to contamination with Pu-240 I think they can be simplified.
 * ✅ re-worded Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "This undergoes spontaneous fission at an appreciable rate, and that releases excess neutrons." how about "Pu-240 undergoes spontaneous fission at a higher rate than Pu-239, releasing a greater number of neutrons"
 * ✅ re-worded Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "The impossibility of solving this problem of a gun-type bomb with plutonium was decided upon in a meeting..." how about "At a meeting in Los Alamos on July 17, 1994, physicists determined a gun-type bomb using plutonium was impossible..."?
 * ✅ Dropped this Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "This forced the Laboratory to turn to an alternative, more practical..." how is it more practical?
 * ✅ re-worded Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * " This "explosive lens" effect focused the explosive force inward with enough force to compress the plutonium core to several times its original density. This would rapidly reduce the necessary size of the critical mass of the material, making it supercritical." How about "This "explosive lens" focuses the explosive force inward with enough force to compress the plutonium core to several times its original density, rapidly reducing the necessary critical mass of material"?
 * "It would also activate a small neutron source at the center of the core, which would assure that the chain reaction began in earnest." how about "A small neutron source was also placed at the center of the core, assuring the chain reaction would begin in earnest"?
 * I'm not sure if the last paragraph in background should be past or present tense. When it's describing the operation of the implosion type bomb it's talking about a set of principles for a specific design, so that ought to be present tense (also it seems easier to write that way, at least for me.)
 * I prefer to stick to the past tense.

decision

 * "Groves gave approval, but, in view of the immense cost of plutonium and the effort that the Manhattan Project had gone through to make it, on condition that the plutonium could be recovered." This sentence is confusing to read.
 * "However, the means of generating such a controlled reaction were uncertain, and the data obtained would not be as useful as that from a full-scale explosion." I think this sentence was written assuming the previous paragraph noted a smaller scale test, which it doesn't, really. I think the sentence "He proposed that the explosion be limited in size..." should be made more clear. Ramset proposed a small scale test to meet Groves's demand that the plutonium be recoverable. We should make that apparent to the reader.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Oppenheimer therefore argued that the..." just "Oppenheimer argued the...". "therefore" can be kept if we really want to but it isn't necessary.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Groves worried about how he would explain the loss of a billion dollars worth of plutonium to a Senate Committee in the event of a failure." What does Hoddeson say in pp. 174-175? I don't have the source at hand.
 * Kistiakowsky remembers that in the fall of 1944 hew and Oppenheimer were still trying to gain approval for the test from Groves, who was grumbling that he would face the wrath of a Senate committee if he lost a billion dollars worth of plutonium. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

organization

 * "Planning for the test was assigned to..." Start this sentence with "In 1944" (or move it near the beginning), it'll read much better.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * " It became the X-2 (Development, Engineering and Tests) Group in the August 1944 reorganisation." maybe "in an August 1944 reorganization"?
 * No, it was the the August 1944 reorganization referred to above. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Scientists William Penney, Victor Weisskopf and Philip Moon were consultants." were they added as consultants in August 1944 or were they on the project from the beginning? IF the former, insert "brought on as", if the latter move them up to before the reorg is mentioned.
 * ✅ They were there from the beginning. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

test site

 * "The site finally chosen, after consult on with Major General, the..." I assume the name of the major general was cut off at some point, also it should just be "after consulting with..."
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "As the soldiers at Trinity Site settled in, they became familiar with Socorro County." this feels odd somehow. Was it added to give some flavor?
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "When the lead plane on a practice night raid accidentally knocked out the generator or otherwise doused the lights illuminating their target, they went in search of replacement lights, and were not informed of the presence of the Trinity base camp." This sentence is hard to follow. Here's my guess after reading it a few times. The trinity base camp was lit up and the pilots were not informed of its existence. Sometimes when the lights on night targets were out for some reason, pilots would mistake the lit trinity camp for the target and bomb them. Is that correct?
 * ✅ Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

jumbo
--65.100.113.204 (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there is a factual error regarding the thinness of jumbo. "long with walls 14 inches (360 mm)" If you inspect the photos of the remains of jumbo on wiki commons the walls appear to be closer to 4 to 6 inches think. I visited the site today and I now for a fact that the walls are considerably less than 14 inches thick. I am not aware if source that may be sited.
 * "The initial calculations were carried out by Hans Bethe, Victor Weisskopf, and Joseph O. Hirschfelder. This was followed by a more detailed analysis by Henderson and Carlson,[22] who drew up a specification..." How about "The initial calculations were carried out by Hans Bethe, Victor Weisskopf, and Joseph O. Hirschfelder, followed by a more detailed analysis by Henderson and Carlson. Specifications were drawn up for..."
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "After consulting with the railroads, Carlson produced a scaled back cylindrical design." Why is it important that the railroads were consulted? I'm assuming that steel companies were approached first and later rail companies because they had experience working with high tensile steel, but I'm not sure. It could be that they consulted the railroads based on the maximum shipping weight for a train car.
 * ✅ I think that it was about what could be transported by rail. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "...the Navy, Babcock & Wilcox, and made something similar and were willing to give it a try." just "...Babcock & Wilcox had made something similar..."
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Even one of 100 tons of TNT (420 GJ) would..." maybe "even 100 tons"?
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "''...flying, which would be a hazard to personnel..." just "flying, presenting a hazard to..."
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "It was therefore decided not to employ it." As a standalone thought this is not very edifying
 * Neither was Jumbo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Touche. I guess a better comment would be "I'm not sure what "it" refers to here". Protonk (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Instead, it was hoisted up in a steel tower 800 yards (730 m) from the Gadget..." by this point in the body we have not referred to the test device itself as "the Gadget"
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The subsequent paragraph also has to be re-worded to note this (and we should settle on "the Gadget" or "the gadget")
 * ✅. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "The CM-10 group at Los Alamos also spent some time studying chemical means for then recovering the active material." this seems a bit awkward.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

100-ton test

 * "assured Bainbridge that the explosives used were not susceptible to shock, and this..." just "shock; this..."
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Flexible tubing was threaded through the pile of boxes of explosives and a radioactive slug from Hanford with 1,000 curies (37 TBq) of beta ray activity and 400 curies (15 TBq) of gamma ray activity was dissolved, and Hempelmann poured it into the tubing." also a bit awkwardly worded.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "This was a Boeing B-29 Superfortress from the 216th Army Air Forces Base Unit flown by the Major..." Two things. First, it's just "flown by". Second, the phrasing "this was a..." seems odd
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * " lead to approach the 5-foot (1.5 m) deep and 30-foot (9.1 m) wide blast crater, and..." don't think the comma is necessary before "and"
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * " The piezoelectric gauges correctly indicated an explosion of 108 tons of TNT (450 GJ), but Luis Walter Alvarez and Bernard Waldman's were less accurate." why is this sentence constructed this way? What were Alverez and Waldman's gauges? Why are they named and the designers/placers of the piezoelectric gauges not?
 * Airborne gauges. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also the sentence about the 0.25 second delay should go before the mention of Alvarez and Waldman.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

the gadget

 * "It gave its name to the Los Alamos Laboratory's weapon physics division, G..." Strictly speaking it can't "give its name", even metonymically. We could say "from which the Los Alamos...took their name" etc.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "A sphere of plutonium-gallium alloy was formed of two equal hemispheres of plutonium metal..." seems odd to specify the alloy then just call it plutonium a few words later.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "This test brought bad news. It seemed to indicate that the test would fail." I know we mean Trinity when we say "the test" and the non-nuclear detonation of the lenses when we say "this test" but the text should be more clear.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "This time the pit was assembled, and the high explosive lenses too." that isn't an independent clause after the conjunction.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Everyone knew it would fit in the hole because it had been in it before the assembly had begun" the word "it" is doing way too much work in this sentence. The same with the following two sentences.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "as it expanded in a spherical shape" it -> the explosion

personnel

 * "Rabi, the last to arrive, eventually won the pool with..." "eventually" isn't necessary here
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "...and pinhole cameras to record the gamma rays." either "would record" or just "the gamma rays"
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

explosion

 * "...light winds and low altitude and westerly winds at high altitude." presumably "light winds at low altitude"
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "The observed colors of the illumination ranged from purple to green and eventually to white." did they eventually range to white or did the illumination eventually become white?
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

civilian detection

 * It seems odd to say that Laurence was "aware" of the Manhattan project. Should we instead say he had been read into it? Or note his role? I agree it's valuable to not give the impression that Groves had him write the releases as a patsy (which would have been very odd), just not sure if this is the cleares way to do so.
 * ✅ Laurence has appeared earlier in the article. Added a bit about him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Such articles appeared in New Mexico..." when we say "such articles" what do we mean?
 * These articles? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume we're just referring to the el paso herald post article and the AP article, but it's possible we could be referring only to the AP article(s) (meaning they would have seen the AP stories on the wire and determined that an accidental explosion with no injuries in the desert wasn't worth printing). I didn't know so I asked. I guess a followup question would be, did east coast newspapers not follow up on the news or did they ignore the NM articles printed? Protonk (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

fallout

 * "...on Chupadera mesa where cattle grazed." I think we just need to note the name of the mesa, the next sentence gives enough information about the cattle.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Patches of hair grew back discolored as white fur." did hair become fur? If not we could just say "grew back discolored white"
 * ✅ We'll stick with "hair" Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Maps of the ground dose rate pattern from the device's fallout at +1 hour, and +12 hours, after detonation are available." I think we can just say "Maps of the ground dose rate from the fallout at +1 hour and +12 hours were drawn" and let the references stand as evidence of their availablity.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "The physicist's knowledge of the..." we can just say "Webb's" as I don't think he has a wikipedia artcle and we don't refer to him as a physicist prior to this sentence.
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "This incident, along with the next continental US tests in 1951 set a precedent, and in all subsequent atmospheric..." Just start a new sentence with "In all"
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

site today

 * "... and the remaining trinitite was disposed of." just "disposed"
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Visitors to a Trinity Site open house..." we mention this before noting what a Trinity Site open house is (in the next paragraph)
 * ✅ Moved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to reply inline with comments or questions (or to note where you've made an update). I'll keep track of which comments have been addressed but if you'd like me to strike comments let me know and I can do that as well. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Crater Size
The "100-ton test" section describes a crater size 5' deep and 30' wide. But so does the "explosion" section of the actual A-bomb. Clarification required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.231.228 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)