Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Calutron/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2016.

Calutron

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the calutron, a spiffy gizmo for magnetic isotope separation. The article has passed GA and A class reviews, which have included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

 * "His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm..." Snakelike sentence. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ling, I broke it into three sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 2 January 2016 (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) 15:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from Grapple X
 * Consider the use of alt text for any images used, so they can be interpreted by screenreaders.
 * Added ALT text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The costs table could be better formatted for the same reason; use !scope="col" and !scope="row" in to define where columns and rows begin. Here is a diff of an example of how to do so.
 * Not sure what the benefit it is - it looks the same as before - but done anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The benefit is, again, for screenreaders, as the definitions allow them to read the table coherently. It means visually-impaired visitors can still benefit from the information in it. G RAPPLE   X  01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason why we have inch-to-millimetre conversions? It just seems unusual to see thousands of millimetres given for measurements.
 * For some reason, millimetres is the default conversion. It seemed appropriate where we were talking about fractions of an inch, so retained there. Switched to cm for the 184 in cyclotron. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Overall this is a very high-quality piece, would be happy to support given the above is addressed. G RAPPLE   X  10:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case I'm happy to support this one. G RAPPLE   X  01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from delldot  &nabla;.
A beautiful article, I have no major complaints, so I had to resort to lots of very minor prose nitpicks: That's all I got for now! More in a few days. Sorry to be a total brat about the minutiae. Very nice work! delldot  &nabla;.  04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Too many California's in this sentence: "Its name was derived from California University Cyclotron, in tribute to Lawrence's institution, the University of California in Berkeley, California, where it was invented." Couldn't the reader infer that the University of California in Berkeley is in fact in California?
 * Removed. Just had to make sure there was one mention that it was in Berkeley before referring to it that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Should this be in American English since it's mainly about California and Tennessee? "6 August 1945", "25 June 1942", etc. If not, should the measurements use metric first with inches or whatever in parentheses?
 * Per WP:STRONGNAT, articles about the 20th century US military use this format. It happens to be thje one the Manhattan Project used consistently. Measurements are in United States customary units. Note however that the US customary unit for fissile materials is metric. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "...the heavier isotopes are bent less by the magnetic field..." not the isotopes themselves, but their paths? Beams? Streams? Or not bent but deflected?
 * Used "deflected", which is probably the term used in the original source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "...he theorized that it was the uranium-235 isotope and not the more abundant uranium-238 that was primarily responsible for fission with thermal neutrons." Does 'primarily' mean that some 238 is also responsible? Or other isotopes too?
 * Yes. Natural uranium is 99.275% uranium-238, 0.72% uranium-235 and 0.005% uranium-234. According to the Wikipedia, the thermal neutron cross section for fission of uranium-238 is around 0.00002 barns, while that of uranium-235 is 583 barns. So in layman's terms, you get some, but not a lot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "This made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated..." Why does it follow from the finding that U-235 is responsible that a chain reaction could happen? This seems stilted without more of an explanation. I understand not wanting to get into the nitty gritty so early, but is there a way this could flow better?
 * Changed to: Leo Szilard and Walter Zinn soon confirmed that more than one neutron was released per fission, which made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. delldot   &nabla;.  00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Uranium-235 makes up only about 0.72% of natural uranium,[14] so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 1250 to produce 90% uranium-235 from natural uranium." These numbers don't mean anything to a lay reader, do we need the specific numbers? The words 'separation factor' make sense in context, but I don't actually know what they mean. If it were like "Uranium-235 makes up only about 1% of natural uranium, and they need it to be 90%, so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 900", I could kind of see where the numbers are coming from and the specificity would make sense. But as is the math makes no sense so it's kind of distracting.
 * Yes, but think of the kids who are trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. By giving exact dates and numbers, we give them plenty of room to maneuver. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "...which results in the beam scattering." I prefer the active voice to this noun + -ing construction: "which causes the beam to scatter." Same with "resulting in reasonably good beams being produced in September 1942."
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "In December Lawrence received a $400,000 grant from the S-1 Uranium Committee." Is this a military or government committee? Might it help to give a link or a parenthetical about what this group is?
 * There is a link to its article, up above when it first appeals. It was a committee of the NDRC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Replace one instance of 'work' here to reduce repetitiveness: "the process had been demonstrated to work, considerable work was still required"
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know the template does this, but "about 3 feet (0.91 m)" would be more sensible as "about 3 feet (0.9 m)" or "about 3 feet (1 m)" given that the 3 ft is an estimate in the first place, so you don't want to be too exact with the conversion.
 * It sure does. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Lawrence's leadership style. His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm were contagious." Hmm, that's one way of putting it, I heard he was a tyrant!
 * That too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Transition wording needed to switch from talking about TN to CA: "...training of workers to operate the production facilities at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. By the middle of 1944, there were nearly 1,200 people working at the Radiation Laboratory."
 * We're not talking about Tennessee. The Radiation Laboratory remained in Berkeley. It's still there today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, they were being trained in Berkeley to work in Oak Ridge later. I misunderstood. It seems perfectly clear now that I reread it. delldot   &nabla;.  00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Typo? " a second stage on enrichment."
 * Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "special procedures were instituted for handling the silver. Holes were drilled into the silver over paper so that the filings could be collected." This is confusing, I think it means "when they wanted to drill holes, they did it over paper", rather than what it kind of sounds like, that they went out of their way to drill holes.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "handfuls of rust were found inside. Moisture was also a problem" Maybe "also a problem in its own right" or something? It's just that the 'also' sounds redundant because moisture causes rust.
 * This is true. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review &nabla;! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, everything's addressed! Back with more in a couple days. delldot   &nabla;.  00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple more for right now: Back with more soon! delldot  &nabla;.  07:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This sentence switched to hyphens from n dashes: "Alpha process buildings, 9201-4 and 9201-5, another Beta, 9204-2". Same with "The two Alpha I buildings, 9201-1 and 9201-2".
 * Got rid of the ndashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you think the paras beginning "Groves authorized Alpha II in September 1943" should be a table instead? It's TMI to integrate as prose, too hard to follow all the numbers, and repetitive. Anything that's not building, start date, or finish date could be kept as prose.
 * It is prose in both the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but they've got a whole book to fill up, right? I don't know that that means we should follow suit. It's up to you, I'm not going to make a big deal of it, but the prose does feel kind of word salady: a jumble of building numbers and dates. I think a table would be a lot more readable.  delldot   &nabla;.  01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That noun -ing construction again (also I have a personal vendetta against 'with' as a conjunction with the present participle): "with S-50 product being fed into K-25 instead."
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Last set: Anyway, that's it from me! Excellent work overall. delldot  &nabla;.  01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Too much 'used in': "Enriched uranium from the calutrons would be used in the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945." you could say 'went into the Little Boy atomic bomb' or something.
 * Re-worded to  Enriched uranium from the calutrons provided the fissile component of the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "By May 1946, studies suggested that the gaseous diffusion plants could fully enrich the uranium by themselves without accidentally creating a critical mass" This is the first mention that there was a danger of this during production. You might just change it to something like "unlike the racetracks, which had a danger of  accidentally creating a critical mass [that could explode?], May 1946 studies suggested that the gaseous diffusion plants could fully enrich the uranium by themselves without this danger" Or something much better written than that.
 * No, the racetracks had very little danger of creating a critical mass, because you can just flick the switch on them if too much uranium-235 starts to build up. The gaseous diffusion plants were rather more complex. Care had to be taken with product though. A bad incident occurred at Oak Ridge on June 16, 1958. Product did not explode, because it didn't come together fast enough, but it irradiated the vicinity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the table "Manhattan Project – Electromagnetic project costs", I think all the figures should be carried out to the same number of significant figures, and either millions or billions should be used, not both. (e.g. 3.69 billion changed to 3690 million) Currently it uses $19.6 million and $6.63 million, I think it would be better either rounding up or using 0's to carry it to the same number of decimals.
 * The magic is all in the FormatPrice template. I assume it conforms to the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dangling modifier: "In 1945, the British atomic bomb project built a 180° calutron similar in design to an American Beta calutron at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, Oxfordshire." Could just put the phrase 'similar in design to an American Beta calutron' in parentheses.
 * Added commas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there anywhere else in the article that the single sentence under Calutron patents could be integrated? It would seem more logical to end the article with the discussion of the more modern-day applications, and this single-sentence section brings us back in time.
 * Moved to the Research section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I expected more info on how a calutron works. The one diagram is small so you can't really see the separate parts or read the labels, maybe it could be cropped or enlarged in the article? (although I know some people don't like the latter).
 * I tried to describe it as best I could. I have enlarged the diagram. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh shoot, did I forget to say support after all that? Sorry! Support. delldot   &nabla;.  03:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- FTR I've checked the relevant MilHist ACR image and source reviews and note that no new images or refs have been added since then, so prepared to close this without further inspection here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.