Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Manhattan Project/archive1

Manhattan Project
Set of articles about the Manhattan Project, covering the articles in its NavBox


 * Contributor(s): Hawkeye7

All the articles in the topic have passed GA or FA --Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't an overview topic be more applicable for this subject? There are simply too many articles that could have something to do with the Manhattan Project, and a delist on any one of them would delist the topic. For instance, if you're going to include Uranium, then it doesn't make sense to keep out enriched uranium (which links to the Manhattan Project in its lead) since that was what was actually used in Little Boy. --  十  八  06:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already an overview topic. It represents only the most significant 100 articles in the Manhattan Project category. And enriched uranium is not in the category. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not a good way to have an overview topic. Even of it is right, it looks like a mish-mash of articles. The first step I would suggest is create a FL on "People ivolved in the Manhattan Project". Maybe even a Sites of GA/FA. Nergaal (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are 361 articles on Manhattan Project people, but there were thousands of people, so no FL is possible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Same way you listed here ~50 people you can have an overview FL on people with only 50 of the 361 articles. Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Or just three. Per Featured topic criteria:
 * There will be no lead article
 * There will be no common template, common category or super-category.
 * Every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic will not also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic
 * In other words, it will never form a featured topic. Whereas the proposed topic does. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This seems to fail 1d of the criteria (There are no obvious gaps (missing or low quality articles) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together). Category:Manhattan Project has 84 pages in it with another nine subcats, I fail to see why some articles have been selected for this topic, whilst others haven't. Of course, I'm happy to proven wrong, but I don't think this meets the criteria. Maybe, some of the articles could be nominated as smaller subtopics if they are complete. Sorry Hawkeye, I realise the huge amount of effort you've put into this, and I thank you a lot for that. — Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 04:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The articles were not cherry picked. They are what is in the NavBox, which are by consensus the most important articles. Only four were GA or FA before I started, and I had to rescue one of the FAs from FARC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I just want to pipe in and say what incredible work has been done on these articles. It is an amazing amount of effort to bring these articles up to such high standard. I do agree with the previous comment, it seem some of the articles from Category:Manhattan Project seem to be left out arbitrarily. Maybe this can be renominated in the future? There are not that many missing pages. Again great work! Mattximus (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Having read over the navigation box, it does seem like nearly everything important is included on this list. I did find S-1 Uranium Committee to not be included, but it seems very important as the precursor to the Manhattan Project? As an aside that science fiction story doesn't belong in that nav box. Mattximus (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The science fiction story isn't in the NavBox (Template:Manhattan Project). I will upgrade the S-1 Uranium Committee article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Article has been cleaned up and is now at GA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, the topic follows the navigation box, which was determined by consensus as the most important articles. Let's have a look at them. Articles in bold are in the set:


 * Manhattan Project -- main article
 * 509th Composite Group
 * Bockscar
 * Enola Gay
 * The Great Artiste
 * Up An' Atom -- Not very important Silverplate B-29
 * Project Alberta
 * Alsos Mission
 * Ames Project
 * Ames process -- covered by Ames Project article
 * British contribution to the Manhattan Project
 * M. S. Factory, Valley -- not mentioned in any Manhattan Project article
 * MAUD Committee -- covered by British contribution
 * Quebec Agreement -- covered by British contribution
 * Calutron
 * S-50 (Manhattan Project)
 * Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Calutron article
 * Clinton Engineer Works
 * Oak Ridge National Laboratory -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Clinton Engineer Works article
 * Oak Ridge, Tennessee -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Clinton Engineer Works article
 * Happy Valley, Oak Ridge, Tennessee -- covered by Clinton Engineer Works article
 * S-50 (Manhattan Project)
 * X-10 Graphite Reactor
 * Y-12 National Security Complex -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Calutron article
 * Dayton Project
 * Einstein–Szilárd letter
 * Fat Man
 * Hanford Site
 * Richland, Washington - Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Hanford site article
 * B Reactor -- one of three reactors at Hanford
 * Interim Committee
 * K-25
 * Kellex Corporation -- covered by K-25 article
 * Little Boy
 * Metallurgical Laboratory
 * Chicago Pile-1
 * Chicago Pile-3 -- covered by Metallurgical Laboratory article
 * Franck Report
 * Red Gate Woods -- covered by Metallurgical Laboratory article
 * Site A/Plot M Disposal Site -- covered by Metallurgical Laboratory article
 * Szilárd petition
 * Montreal Laboratory
 * Office of Scientific Research and Development
 * Oppenheimer security hearing
 * Pumpkin bomb
 * P-9 Project
 * Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
 * Lake Ontario Ordnance Works
 * Operation Peppermint
 * Plutonium
 * Project Y
 * History of the Teller–Ulam design -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Project Y article
 * Los Alamos National Laboratory -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Project Y article
 * Los Alamos Primer -- covered by Project Y article
 * Los Alamos Ranch School relevant parts covered by Project Y article
 * Los Alamos, New Mexico
 * Project Alberta
 * Trinity (nuclear test)
 * McDonald Ranch House covered by Trinity article (although it is GA)
 * Trinitite
 * RaLa Experiment
 * Special Engineer Detachment -- covered by Project Y article
 * Project Camel
 * 216th Army Air Forces Base Unit
 * S-1 Uranium Committee
 * Silverplate
 * Smyth Report
 * Stone & Webster
 * Thin Man (nuclear bomb)
 * Timeline of the Manhattan Project
 * Tower 270
 * Uranium
 * Cold Water Creek -- trivia not mentioned in any Manhattan Project article
 * Uravan, Colorado
 * Union Minière du Haut Katanga -- Covered by main article
 * Shinkolobwe
 * Wendover Air Force Base
 * Westinghouse Lamp Plant
 * Deadline (science fiction story) -- trivia not mentioned in any Manhattan Project article


 * The category is unimportant and can be ignored. The set follows the NavBox. So, which article do you think warrants inclusion, and which one should be removed? Note that there is no possibility of some of them ever being brought to GA standard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me try this again. The current proposed topic is very cluncky to say the least. EVEN if it was 100% the correct form, say somebody opens the topic, what do they see? A bunch of names together. The only large topic that comes into my mind is some German ship topic where 90 articles are obviously name of the ships. In this list, there is a ton of stuff that you have no idea what they are, and maybe the only way to find out is to actually read the entire article. The point of the topic is to quickly introduce a reader to the topic with a menu, not to give him a soup to begin with. That is why, an overview topic should have a few sensible subtopics (i.e. People involved in MP, Timeline of MP, Locations of MP, etc) plus a few obvious ones like Fat Man, maybe Oppenhauer, etc. Even the template presented right above my reply is more clear that the proposed topic, and it kinda alludes that there are some gaps in the topic. Please try again to reorganize the topic and come up with some bare-bone ideas for article names and then let's start the discussion from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * With discussion that has seemed to have stalled for the past month or so, and already with with two opposes with valid concerns about the topic's scope, I am closing this nomination with no consensus to promote. Feel free to re-nominate when the issues have been addressed.--  十  八  22:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)