Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armed Forces Special Weapons Project/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, a United States military agency responsible for those aspects of nuclear weapons remaining under the military after the Manhattan Project was succeeded by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on 1 January 1947. I am especially pleased with it as I created the article in 2010. Since then it has passed Good Article and A Class article reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from John
Oppose for now based on prose concerns. Could do with a good copyedit. Sourcing seems ok. Will post a full review in 24 hours or less. --John (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Update I am sorry real life seems to have caught up with me. I still hope to post a full review here tonight or tomorrow. --John (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Were you planning to return to this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Sorry this escaped me. I will try to post a proper review, do the copyedit myself, or withdraw my oppose over the weekend. --John (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Question "The act that was signed by President Harry S. Truman on 1 August 1946 created a civilian agency, the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), to take over the functions and assets of the Manhattan Project, but the AEC did not assume its role until 1 January 1947." Is it important to highlight this five-month hiatus? Other than that I think it is almost good to go. --John (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye, was such a gap unusual or par for the course with US govt agencies? The way it's expressed makes it sound like the former; if not, the last bit could be recast as "and the AEC assumed its role on 1 January 1947". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not usually when it is so urgent. Five months is a long time. The point is that in this case millions of dollars was being spent and very important decisions put on hold, with the whole Manhattan Project practically on autopilot while first Congress argued over the legislation, and then the AEC commissioners took their time being appointed and getting up to speed on their roles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can this be sourced? If it's a vital part of the subject's story, of course it should be included. --John (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added a bit more about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That works for me; I still query giving it such emphasis, but I trust you that it's an important part of the story per the sources. --John (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How are things looking for you now, as I think we're close to wrapping this up otherwise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I still wish we could clarify the tanks issue mentioned below. It's like a teaser as it stands. --John (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed the bit about the tanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions
 * You mentioned in an edit summary that 502d is USEng; how about "122nd"? Should that be 122d?
 * Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To bolster the base defenses, Montague acquired 18 tanks; what kind of tanks? What happened to them? --John (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea. All my source says is: The next month, General Montague brought in 18 tanks and stationed them around the Ordnance, Igloo, and Technical areas. It's sourced to the internal history, so I'd have to access the archives at NARA College Park to find out more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd ideally like to see this clarified; "tanks" could mean various different things. It's unusual enough to be worth elaborating on I think. --John (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that is all I have. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a real shame; on a military technology article, saying "18 tanks" is almost like saying "7 warships". I'd almost suggest just pulling this sentence if that is all we have in the sources about it. Though I probably wouldn't oppose just over this. --John (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed the bit about the tanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Update I think I am now happy with the prose which I tidied here. I will support once the two outstanding items above are resolved. Thanks for taking care of the ordinals. --John (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I now support this article's promotion. I'd love to see more about the tanks re-added should it become available. --John (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too! Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review from Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Rearden: need ndash in title
 * Truslow: check caps on publisher name. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Anotherclown
Comments from Anotherclown
 * All images have Alt Text except File:AFSWP badge.jpeg - wonder if it should be added for consistency? (suggestion only - not an FA req as far as I'm aware).
 * Some duplicate links:
 * Manhattan Project
 * Leslie R. Groves, Jr.
 * Los Alamos Laboratory
 * President
 * Harry S. Truman
 * Silverplate
 * Kenneth D. Nichols
 * "The military side of the Manhattan Project had relied heavily on reservists..." perhaps wikilink reservists?
 * " However, they were also urgently required for many other jobs in the post war Army...", think post war should be hyphenated (i.e. "post-war").
 * "...which would become a field unit under the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project..." abbreviation AFSWP should be introduced here.
 * Typo here I think: "which would be a jointly staffed by the Army and Navy..." ("a" should be removed).
 * "...Patterson and Forrestal issued a memorandum that formally established the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP)..." should just be AFSWP after introduction of abbrev earlier in article.
 * "...one for each of the three Midway class carriers..." Midway class might need to be hyphenated here to be consisted with previous usage in article.
 * typo here: " in April 1947, Lilienthal informed the him..." (specifically "the him").
 * this seems a little awkward: "...and there now two members from each of the three services...", perhaps reword?
 * DASA is redlinked in the lead, but you use a piped link at the end of the article. Should the one in the lead by piped also? Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All done. Decided that "prewar" is the correct American English form. And kept the red link on DASA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - in my opinion the article meets FA criteria fol these changes. Anotherclown (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support from ColonelHenry
I was asked whether I could give the article a look and do a review. It will be forthcoming this evening (10JAN14) or tomorrow (11JAN14).--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Took me a few days to look at the article, I apologise greatly for the delay. After a few minor adjustments, I look forward to supporting this.

Per the FA criteria:
 * 1A: Generally well-written, informative, and factual. I do notice a few stylistic areas that need to be addressed (below)
 * 1B: Sufficiently comprehensive.
 * 1C: Article is well-researched and adequately sourced, meeting WP:V. Article relying on combination of primary documents, and secondary sources that are both rigorous scholarly surveys and popular histories of the program. I did some source checks at random, and didn't see any problems.
 * 1D: Article is a "just the facts" historical presentation--no opinion, no bias.
 * 1E: Article looks stable for the past several years, no evidence or indication of content disputes or editing behavior that undermines article stability.
 * 2A: The lede is pretty good - adequately sums up the article, and meets the requirements of the MOS
 * 2B: No problem with the structure/layout--I think its entirely appropriate for the article's content.
 * 2C: Citations are consistent. Not a style I like to use or see, but they're consistent.
 * 3: I did an Image Review and all looks good--all images are either created by a Wikipedian or public domain federal government work product.
 * 4: Length is appropriate, balances need for details with summary style.

I noticed a few issues to address:
 * There are a lot of superfluous commas. For instance, in one section I removed about two dozen. For example: One sentence Groves retired at the end of February 1948, and Nichols was designated as his successor, with the rank of major general. didn't need either of the commas. I removed both of them.
 * No, that is incorrect. A comma is required when "and" is being used to coordinate two independent clauses. So the first comma should be there. I don't use the serial comma though. USEng used to be big on commas, but it is in decline, and people like you are drifting towards AusEng, where comma usage is mimimized. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, comma use is arguable depending on which style guide you look at it, and independent clauses are often condemned (q.v.: cf. Strunk & White ) as sloppy and many advocate splitting such awkwardly constructed sentences. Take the advice of wise novelists who have essentially said, unless your famous, don't do it. Perhaps splitting would be better. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A civilian, Donald F. Carpenter from the Remington Arms Company, rephrase..and why is his past at Remington relevant. It seems a superfluous detail. What was he at Remington that makes that relevant to the project? If it's not really that germane, it's easier to say Donald F. Carpenter, a civilian,...
 * Done. I had in the back of my mind that "civilian" is pejorative in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping me when you've taken a look at the above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review ColonelHenry. It is much appreciated. The subject isn't a well-known one, but many people reading up on the Manhattan Project might wonder what happened next. This article will tell them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 has sufficiently addressed my concerns. I support this article's promotion to FA status.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

 * Support. The article is impressive in its sourcing, throughout. I particularly like the standardization and uniformity, as well as the easy-to-use Notes/References sects. A few redlinks throughout the article, it'd be nice to see those as bluelinks someday soon, but not urgent for FA. The article is certainly educational and has high encyclopedic value. Minor quibble: I don't think the portal links belong in the References section, rather, suggest using a portal bar format to add a bunch more portals as a portal bar at the bottom of the article. Excellent efforts, overall. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Per WP:Red Link: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished". The whole article was created from a red link. I normally don't create red links them unless I intend to eventually create articles. In particular,  intend to create DASA. The conversion to DASA just seemed like a natural place to end the article. I actually started writing about RADM Parker, who is best known for the Battle of the Java Sea, but could not find enough information about him. The other red links were added by other editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Support
 * Well done, but I do have one quibble:
 * was a real prospect that wartime Mightn't "danger" be a better word here than prospect as it emphasizes the risks in the situation? Suggestion only.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.