Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British contribution to the Manhattan 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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2015.

British contribution to the Manhattan Project

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the British contribution to the Manhattan Project. It is part of a new series of topic articles, and was only created in December of last year. It has already passed GA and A-Class reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: an image review was conducted as part of the A-class review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN36 is displaying wikicode, check formatting
 * FN53 should include publisher
 * FN80: I know this is what NLA produces, but the title should really only be The Canberra Times
 * Use a consistent formatting for USGPO - compare FN36 and 136
 * Books in Notes have no locations while books in References (mostly) include them - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments  I hope these few points are helpful.  Tim riley  talk    14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * General
 * MOS:SURNAME – Sir John Anderson, Sir John Dill have their full names and titles repeated after first mention. These later mentions should be surname only. Similarly, Klaus Fuchs's full name is repeated.
 * Not clear of your rationale for capitalising: "permanent secretary" and "laboratory director" but "Technical Subcommittee", "head of the British Mission"; we have "Prime Minister" and "prime minister", too.
 * Lead
 * As the article is in BrEng, "program" in the last para of the lead (and the image caption for Oliphant and four later occurrences in the text) should be "programme". In BrEng "program" is for computers; all other uses take the traditional spelling.
 * Origins
 * "minister" – touch of WP:OVERLINK, possibly.
 * Early Anglo-American cooperation
 * "He met with the Uranium Committee" – in British usage one meets with inanimate things – disaster, success – but just meets people.
 * "Ironically, it would be revealed" – WP:EDITORIAL.
 * Cooperation resumes
 * "However heavy" – if you must use "however", it needs a comma after it in such a construction.
 * Los Alamos Laboratory
 * "Chadwick arrived 12 January" – missing "on".
 * Thanks very much for that, especially the comments on British English. I was aware that the Americans use "met" to mean "first met", but had not seen a rule about it until now. Also for the note about "program" (which actually is the older form, the French spelling came in later). I was aware of the use of "program" in the computer sense (which comes from Turing & co. in Britain, not from America), but had mistakenly thought that British English had reverted back to the old form. I have corrected this, and all the other points mentioned, except for "ironically", as I meant this literally, and not as WP:EDITORIAL. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pleased to add support. A fascinating article that meets all the FA criteria in my view.  Tim riley  talk    14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Really nothing to add. Superbly written and engaging. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.