Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leslie Groves/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 Laser brain 01:37, 23 February 2011.

Leslie Groves

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... Leslie Groves, the man behind the Manhattan Project which developed the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought I recognized the name! I will read the article over and get back to you sometime middle of next week with comments (I have three promised reviews in front, I'm afraid!)--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sp33dyphil Aside from these, I cannot find anything negative about the article. Support for FA status from Sp33dyphil  (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 06:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one or two portals should be added.
 * Added US Army and Nuclear Technology portals Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the article is about an American figure, it is preferable to use the month/day/year date format, instead of the current day/month/year format, as per WP:DATESNO.
 * Per WP:STRONGNAT: Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Images File:Pentagon construction.jpg has the source as a dead link as does File:Groves_Oppenheimer.jpg as does File:K-25_Aerial.jpg, File:Trinity_Test_-_Oppenheimer_and_Groves_at_Ground_Zero_002.jpg lacks a link to the license information, File:Sandia-Building800-1951.gif references itself as it's own source, File:Nagasakibomb.jpg has as it's source a redirect to another page Fasach Nua (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  01:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * "Cullum" in the bibliography is "Callum" in the citations. Incidentally, the Cullum/Callum files are evidently vast, and take an age to load.
 * Corrected. I know they are large, but not sure what can be done about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 51: source does not fully support the statement cited to it: "Groves is memorialized as the namesake of Leslie Groves Park along the Columbia River, not more than five miles from the Hanford Site in Richland". The name of the park is mentioned but not the distance from the Hanford Site.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources look reliable; citation formats OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Please check my copyediting.
 * Does "architect-engineer" mean the head architect and head engineer, or the engineer for the architects? - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An architect-engineer is either a person qualified as both an architect and a civil engineer, or a firm providing both services through its personnel. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "architect-engineer" isn't in my dictionaries, so it will need preferably a quick inline definition, or perhaps a link would work ... but I don't see a page in Wikipedia or Wiktionary to link to. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no page to link to, nor can one be created. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the term isn't in non-specialist dictionaries and won't be familiar to most readers, it will need either an explanation or a link before I can support. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It cannot be linked because there is no article. No article can be created because WP:NOT. The term cannot be explained in the article. So I am open to suggestions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was why I suggested Wiktionary for the link. And we need not have an article on architect-engineers, only a mention in some article of what they are, if you'd rather not cover it here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have linked it to architectural engineering. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph that begins "In 1943, the MED became responsible ..." doesn't quite work. The structure seems to be "They did this, this and this for security, but it wasn't good enough".  But the sentence on Oppenheimer doesn't fit that structure (the clearance didn't help security, it allowed a talented man to work on the project), and the last sentence needs something ... perhaps it needs to start with "But". - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I can support after these two things are tackled. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Query Support Interesting read, I learned something there. Also I've tweaked a couple of things, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.  Ϣere Spell  Checkers  00:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the relevance of "Here young Dick Groves met Grace (Boo) Wilson, the daughter of Colonel Richard Hulbert Wilson, a career Army officer who had served with Chaplain Groves with the 8th Infantry in Cuba." It seems unconnected to the rest of the article.
 * 2) *They get married in the next section. Do you want me to move that text down to the bit on their courtship? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **whoops my bad, not sure how I missed that.  Ϣere Spell  Checkers  15:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Land was condemned - presumably some sort of compulsory purchase. Is this a common American English term and if so is it possible to link or reword this.
 * 5) *I have linked "condemnation" (a legal term) to eminent domain (an American term - in Australia we would say "compulsory acquisition"). The article on eminent domain contains a good explanation of "condemnation". Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) **Thanks.  Ϣere Spell  Checkers  15:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) "In 1940 Groves, who "had a reputation as a doer, a driver, and a stickler for duty", became special assistant for construction to the Quartermaster General, tasked with inspecting construction sites and checking on their progress. The program was dogged by bottlenecks, shortages, delays, spiralling costs, and poor living conditions at the construction sites" This bit of the lead sounds like a less than stellar performance by the general, whilst the main body reads more like he helped turn round a problematic project.
 * 8) *Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) **Thanks.  Ϣere Spell  Checkers  15:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add that the original article before I expanded it is now the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * WP:OVERLINK - don't link commonly-known terms, and don't link the same terms multiple times, especially not close together
 * A number of short choppy sentences - suggest combining some to improve flow
 * Needs some copy-editing for spelling/grammar ("Chaplin" Groves? "moved once move"?) and flow
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in using "Washington D.C." or "Washington, D.C.", not both
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we avoid repeating so much of the material from the lead verbatim in the article body?
 * "%" should be spelled out
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 38 - formatting should be similar to Bibliography entries
 * Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in how locations are presented in Bibliography Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Query - Were Fasach Nua's image concerns addressed? I see no reply or follow-up. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were all addressed, but he asked for the reply to be redacted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- Reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR; made some further minor copyedits here but generally prose seems fine, as do structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials -- well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I expect to support, but a few short list of items I'd like looked at.
 * Lede
 * The lede sentence and the infobox picture refer to him by different ranks.
 * The standard is for the infobox to cite the highest rank achieved; the caption refers to his rank when the photograph was taken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that if you want to keep the quote in the lede (honestly, I'd paraphase) you will need to cite at the end of the sentence, in spite of the fact that the quote is repeated in the body of the article.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Early life
 * his wife Gwen née Griffith. Perhaps better "the former Gwen Griffith".
 * "His next posting was to Fort Apache, Arizona, so the family spent summers there" "so", to my mind, is used when something logically follows.  Perhaps strike ", so" and insert a semicolon.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Dick Groves therefore entered" The word therefore also implies something with logically follows.  In this case, he could have gone to private or boarding school.  I would strike the word "therefore"
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that he tried two different routes to get into West Point, first a congressional or presidential appointment, then an examination route which did not require an appointment? If I'm wrong can you clarify in article?
 * The presidential nominations put you in a pool from which you took an exam. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, best to clarify whether being posted to the Corps of Engineers or the second lieutenancy was the reward for the top few spots.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Between the wars
 * Was the educational aspect of his tour aimed at his engineering service, or was it general for all officers?
 * Yes. All officers went through the Basic Officers' Course of their corps. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fort Worden should be linked?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * World War II
 * That quote's back again. It should be cited at the end of the sentence it appears in.  You might want to consider putting in who said it.
 * Added a ref.. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Manhattan project
 * Grove's disappointment. Why?  I imagine because he wasn't going to the wars, but from that quote, the assignment might have been at the wars.
 * It's one of those hard-to-explain cultural things. American officers prefer combat assignments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Meanwhile, Groves had met with J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Berkeley physicist," And had he been at Columbia, would he be the New York physicist?  I would change to "University of California physicist"
 * No, he would have been the "Columbia physicist". The University of california has a number of campuses, of varying quality and prestige. Changed to "University of California, Berkeley" physicist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Groves also detected" This sentence tries to do too much, and the last part is very awkward. I'd split off all after the last comma into its own sentence.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The chain of events is unclear to me. First, there was security concerns (very amorphous) about Oppenheimer.  Then, his communist connections "came to light" (another rather vague phrase.  As the security concerns were about his communist connections, from what I can read, well, it seems to me that you might want to make this more clear.
 * "Groves deposited a total of $37.5 million into the Trust's account." Surely the Federal government did the actual depositiing.
 * No, Groves did it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to rearrange the images so as to avoid interfering with the blockquote.
 * Later life
 * Vice-President should be "vice president".
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If Allen Groves died in a combat-related way, it would be nice to have it mentioned, either here or in the early part of the article, in what action he was killed.
 * He died of pneumonia. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He died of pneumonia. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all I've got. Fine article. Please let me know when you want me to look again, I do not watchlist FACs I didn't nominate--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Feedback. Fascinating topic. I've done some time on the mesa and there were people who remembered Grove. So glad you are doing this one. Have some very high level reactions (I'm admitting they are surface reactions.) Mostly just towards trying to make the thing enjoyable for people as I value this topic!


 * Recommend slimming the lead down. It's pretty detailed especially given the rest of the article size.  If you make an arbitrary limit (to yourself) and cut it down to about 30% less, the reader will like it better.  They don't need every assignment he had (in lead).


 * Make more para breaks. First para of body had 11 sentences.  Given the content is a teensy bit dry, just doing more visual breaks will help reader be more willing to read.  Look for natural divisions of content to break at, but with 8 or more sentences, there is usually a rational way to subdivide the idea.
 * I would need another vote for this, as earlier reviewers asked for the paragraphs to be consolidated because there were "too many short paragraphs". Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Lot of blue. Quick one I noticed was Manhatten Engineering District right under the referal to Manhatten Project main article.  Both links are going to same place.  I wouldn't even go to a section.  Would just delink MED.  There's probably more.
 * This reflects a discussion on the Manhattan Project page concerning whether the MED should have a separate article. The consensus was not to, but there remains confusion between the two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

P.s. If you want a more detailed review let me know and I will take the time. No pressure. HONEST. (I just fastened on seeing the General.)

TCO (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.