Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Crossroads/archive2


 * 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 10:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC).

Operation Crossroads

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC) and HowardMorland (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because... Operation Crossroads was the first series of nuclear tests conducted in the Pacific. Although mostly remembered for a bathing suit, it is still the best known nuclear test after Trinity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell
This is a massive article about a massively important topic. I hope to find time fully review it in the next week. Until then, I'll just give these drive-by issues. Review is ongoing.


 * (Regarding the image check) I did find one issue: if the author of File:1946-07-08 First Pictures Atomic Blast.ogv is really "Universal Newsreels", then the PD-USGov tag is incorrect.
 * Almost every Universal newsreel on Commons is incorrectly tagged. Universal placed its collection in the Public Domain back in 1976. I have corrected the tagging for this video, and left a note on Commons for the House Elf to go over the rest. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The final sentence (under "Legacy") has some problems. (1) When a semicolon joins independent clauses, everything after the semicolon should act as a complete sentence. (2) It would be helpful if each quote had its own citation. Currently they're together, and in reverse order. (3) It isn't clear what the text means by "coincidence", since the bikini was purposefully named after the test. I think it means that both explanations could be true, but there are better ways to put it. (4) Notwithstanding the previous point, "coincidence" is a common word and should not be linked. (5) "Perhaps" doesn't fit will grammatically, and I think it's acting as a weasel-word here. (6) It isn't immediately clear how "atom bombs reduce everybody to primitive costume". The source clarifies by discussing both half-naked islanders and people emerging from a bomb blast with torn clothes; either choice is amazingly distasteful, though that's not the article's fault. And (7) I personally think it would be useful to link "bikini swimwear"; it's previously linked way up in the nicknames section, but that's a long way back. – Quadell (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've re-worked the paragraph. For bad taste, the atomic explosion cake is hard to beat, but the fashion designers did their best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider the clause "Although there are claims that participants in the Operation Crossroads tests were well protected against radiation sickness". To aviod weasel words, consider rewriting it as "Although planners attempted to protect participants in the Operation Crossroads tests against radiation sickness". (There clearly were attempts, and some protective measures. But the article doesn't describe any claim that they were "well" protected.)
 * Sounds good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The noun phrase "immediate, concentrated local radioactive fallout" has four adjectives, but only one comma. That makes the sentence confusing to parse.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think "deadly burst of radiations from the bomb" should be "deadly burst of radiation from the bomb".
 * Probably, but it is a quote so I cannot change it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ack! You're right. Stricken. – Quadell (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * When a source is static publication that does not change (such as works with ISBNs or ISSNs, or scans of print magazines), they should not have "retrieved on" dates.
 * There's still some debate about the journals. But I don't see any problems here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oll Korrect now. – Quadell (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article consistently uses the serial comma, which is appropriate. But the caption for the "Prospective Operation Crossroads target ships" image does not.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the comma in this edit, since I think that would be more correct. – Quadell (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect the lead is too short. It consists of three paragraphs, and the first is quite short. MOS:LEAD recommends "Three or four paragraphs" for articles with "More than 30,000 characters"; this article has more than 60,000 characters, not including the lead and end sections.
 * I've expanded the lead to four paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very nice. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead links to Trinity (nuclear test) twice (once through a redirect), and to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki twice (again, once through a redirect).
 * Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet. – Quadell (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected in the expansion of the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm really impressed with the comprehensiveness of this article, with the sourcing, and with the prose. If I identify a lot of prose issues, it's only because there's a lot of prose to check; most of it is great, and some of it is brilliant. Still, the sentence in the background section that begins "Commodore William S. 'Deak' Parsons" is too long and winding to be easily understood at the first reading. It should be split somehow.
 * Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure how military titles are handled grammatically, so help me out here. Is this clause correct? "...by the Commander in Chief, United States Fleet, Fleet Admiral Ernest King at a press conference." Are there missing prepositions, or maybe a comma needed after Ernest King? I'm honestly not sure, but it looks funny to me.
 * Comma needed after "King". But I've re-worded the sentence instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider this sentence in the opposition section: "Manhattan Project scientists who had argued for a public test of the bomb in lieu of dropping it on a Japanese city now argued that further testing was unnecessary and environmentally dangerous." That sounds a bit like a "gotcha" to me, and smacks of bias (whether intentional or unintentional), as if the reader is supposed to think "Can't those scientist-protesters make up their minds?" I don't think it's fair to lead the witness in this way. Personally, I would reword it is "Several Manhattan Project scientists argued that, since the affects of nuclear bomb had been seen studied after their use in World War II, further testing was unnecessary and environmentally dangerous."
 * Agreed. These are two very different things. I think that people sometimes forget that that there was a difference between conducting Trinity in wartime, when people were taking risks and dying every day, and a peacetime test like Crossroads. Crossroads did raise a considerable doubts that a demonstration in 1945 would have had any effect on the Japanese, but this was anyone's guess in 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A few sentences down, in the phrase "When they complained that...", it isn't clear who "they" are. The phrasing adds to the perception that all opponents of the tests are being lumped together as "complainers". I think it could be better worded as "When objections arose that..."
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think "Congressional critics" means "critics within Congress", not "critics of Congress", but it's a tad ambiguous.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Watch out for overlinking. Words like "oil, ammunition, and fuel" should not be linked, and I don't think the vulnerability article gives further useful information when linked from here, for instance. Please go through this article and, for each link, consider if the reader can be expected to already understand the term in the context of the article, and whether the linked article will provide further information which would help the reader better understand Operation Crossroads. So aircraft carrier and seaplane are useful links, but I don't think airplane is. Look carefully at links like seawater, emaciation, and goat; perhaps they are useful, but perhaps not.
 * Unlinked. Kept seawater and emaciation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like the list at the top of the Preparation section. I think it could be more effectly rendered in prose. (Thematically, it can be grouped into requirements for isolation, for U.S. control, for anchorage needs, and for weather/water flow conditions.)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very, very nice. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the word "destruction" would be more apt than "carnage" in "The main cause of less-than-expected ship carnage". "Carnage" almost always refers specifically to death and gore.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would break up the sentence beginning "Many of the closer ships received", and the sentence beginning "Although the Able bomb missed its target" (both in Abel's "Radiation" section).
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The direct quote beginning "... a large ship" seems to come out of nowhere. It would be better to say something like "In the assessment of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,".
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The caption of Baker's target array lists the depths of two of submarines that sank: the Pilotfish and the Apogon. But it doesn't list the depth of the third submarine that sank: the Skipjack.
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider this caption. "The Wilson cloud lifts, revealing a vertical black object, larger than ships in the foreground, which most observers believed was the upended battleship Arkansas. Blandy said it was smoke." It's true that Blandy said it was smoke, but Blandy also said radiation death is not painful. James Delgado (a much more credible commenter) says it was a rainshadow of sorts. I think the caption should be revised to something like the following, with the citation modified accordingly.
 * The Wilson cloud lifts, revealing a vertical black object, larger than ships in the foreground. Most observers believed this to be the upended battleship Arkansas, but other explanations have been offered.
 * I think "most observers" covers it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The prose says that Gilda (Able) missed her target by 710 yards. But the caption for Able's target array says the "intended bullseye" was the Nevada, and the chart says that Nevada was 615 yards from zero. Where did the other 95 yards go? (All this info is sourced to Delgado 1991.)
 * The first figure comes from Delgado, p. 86. The second comes from p. 87. The second refers to where the ship sank, which may differ. Altered the caption. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like an anon added a fact tag back on September 11 of this year. It ought to be dealt with. Is the info in Shurcliff 1947?
 * I could not find it, so I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Unfissioned plutonium" section says "The results of these plutonium detection tests, and of tests performed on fish caught in the lagoon, caused all decontamination work to be abruptly terminated...", but it doesn't say what the results were. You have to read down 7 paragraphs into the next section to confirm that yes, they found plutonium everywhere. There's no need for that kind of suspense. The explanation can be quite brief, but it should at least be mentioned that the test "[t]o see if this plan was working" showed that it was unambiguously not.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article says "The local government elected to close the fly in, fly out, land-based diving operation". If the reader is not already familiar with the term, it isn't clear what this means (nor is it clear how to parse the sentence). A slight modification, and a link to Fly-in fly-out, should do the trick.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Image check: Every image is legitimately in the public domain, and all necessary information is provided. (While researching the copyright status of File:Admiral Blandy Mushroom Cloud Cake.jpg, I found an interesting fact: while the Wall Street Journal meticulously renewed the copyrights on every single issue, the Washington Post did not. I'll have to remember that. It could prove very useful.)


 * Seriously, the prose is great, and I'm not finding much to critique. I've made a number of minor changes (mostly commas) to improve the grammar or make the text clearer. Let me know if you disagree with any of these.


 * I modified the caption of the self-x-rayed fish. If my wording left out something important, let me know.


 * This is not required for Featured status, but in my opinion, it would be an improvement if the article had a footnotes section separate from the citations. Then the explanatory notes (20, 26, 95, etc.) could be given their own space.

Enthusiastic support. This article explains every facet of the subject in clear, understandable, brilliant prose. If there were pages, I would call it a page-turner. It passes all the FA criteria with flying colors, and is truly among the best Wikipedia has to offer. – Quadell (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

(end of review by Quadell)

Review by John
Support First I note that I have worked on this article before this FAR process. That said, I am very pleased with the recent improvements and agree with Quadell that it now meets FAC. --John (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Don't include quote-initial ellipses
 * Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether "p" and "pp" are followed by periods or not
 * Radio Bikini should be italicized
 * FN96 abbreviates page ranges, most footnotes don't
 * Check alphabetization of References
 * Be consistent in whether and when you include publisher locations, and for Washington specify DC
 * Verify publishing info for Oertling - is a Texas university press really in Canada? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They give their address as 1905 Ogden Avenue, Vancouver BC, Canada V6J 1A3 Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All points addressed Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * as Texas had done with its battleship might this be better phrased as: "As Texas had done with the USS Texas" with appropriate link?
 * What's an attack transport?
 * Generally, I'd prefer the ships involved to be named when they're mentioned rather than just a generic reference. I know that you have that nice list immediately following, but still...
 * The links in the caption for the Able target array are redundant.
 * , which could be lowered into the water by crane Is this important?
 * large naval gunships Battleships, you mean.
 * Link megaton. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Done
 * 2) It's a type of warship. Linked.
 * 3) Noted.
 * 4) Noted.
 * 5) A number of ships sank during the war due to fires started by the onboard aircraft and its stores. So the aircraft are mentioned in the context of damage. Then an editor presumably thought that it might not be understood how they worked and added an . This is something that you known of course, but many readers may not be so familiar with the warships of the period.
 * 6) Majestic titans
 * 7) They had lithium deuteride fuel but did not realise that lithium-7 will fuse as well as lithium-6, so the bomb went off with a much, much bigger bang than expected. Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All of my issues have been dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.