Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Project A119/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:49, 5 December 2011.

Project A119

 * Nominator(s): GRAPPLE   X  19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a painless GA nomination, and a thorough examination at WP:MILHIST's A-Class review, I feel it meets the criteria and is as comprehensive and stable as an article on a fifty-year-old classified military operation is likely to be. This is a great opportunity to help counter the harsh bias against moon-bombing shown on this encyclopaedia (and every other encyclopaedia too, for that matter). I'm not likely to be available to reply for the next night or so but I should be more than capable of addressing any concerns over the coming week and beyond. Thanks. GRAPPLE  X  19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order - eg. [2][3] rather than [3][2]
 * Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
 * Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers
 * What are the qualifications of the author of this page? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the first three (I saw one instance of non-consecutive refs, let me know if I've missed any others). As for the page you're noted, per the CV listed here on the same site, I believe it falls under the expert sources exemption of WP:SPS. GRAPPLE   X  13:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That CV is for the site owner; the source you're citing was not written by him, but by Aleksandr Zheleznyakov. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha. I had assumed that the site owner would reliably vet what he publishes; however, thanks to Google Translate, I was able to glean this from Zheleznyakov's website, which further led me to this page. Again, this leads to believe that the source is by an expert in the field, more so now that it appears to come from an expert in "Soviet Cosmonautics". Also remind me to check the library for Sex in Space now... GRAPPLE   X  10:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-Links ("Dark side of the moon" can't be resolved), no dead external links, 3 minor wikilinks fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I checked all the sources for the article when it came up for A-class. And I mean all of them. I think this is a fascinating article, well written and well researched. I had never heard of it. It's good to learn new things occasionally. Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment&mdash;It's an interesting topic, but a quick read-through suggests that the article needs further improvement. Here are a few concerns I had:
 * (1) The lead contains the unsourced assertion that the "purpose of such an act would be to demonstrate the superiority of the United States over the Soviet Union..." However, the article says that it "was hoped that such a display would boost the morale of the American people, which had been shaken by the advances gained by the Soviets". Which was it? If the former is true, why isn't it expanded upon in the body? Superior in what way?
 * (2) "Project A119 was one of several possibilities that the United States investigated..." Possibilities for what?
 * (3) Who proposed the project?
 * (4) "...team of ten people...": this doesn't seem very concise. Were they subject matter experts or just ten random people?
 * Out of curiosity, I attempted to tentatively identify the names on the unclassified report. The following seem to be likely matches: James J. Brophy, Narinder Singh Kapany, William Edward Loewe, Dickron Mergerian, Verner J. Raelson, Carl E. Sagan, and Philip N. Slater; all unconfirmed of course (and so unusable in the article). They're all scientists and engineers.
 * (5) "...weight of such a device, as it would need to be propelled over 375,000 kilometers..." It shouldn't have anything to do with the distance. The chief obstacle is in getting the mass off the Earth and into an escape trajectory. The article needs to clarify this.
 * Clarification: if you have the delta-v budget you need to achieve to reach the target, the distance only matters because of the time of flight. I wouldn't expect the flight time to be a concern given the half-life of the fission materials. Perhaps it was worded this way for consumption by non-technical readers? Possibly the information could be presented as a quote, unless another source can be found that clarifies the reasoning.
 * When I read the original source, the wording was subtly different from what is in the article. Based on this source, the obstacle was that the hydrogen bomb was too heavy for the missile to achieve the target objective. The distance clearly isn't the obstacle because the atom bomb would have to be carried just as far. Does this help? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've dug up where the Los Angeles Times reported that same Associated Press story, already used as a source in the article. I've clarified things a bit now as a result. GRAPPLE   X  21:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (6) It says the "dark side of the Moon", which is the side of the Moon not currently illuminated by the Sun. However, some readers may find this confusing as it is sometimes used colloquially to refer to the far side of the moon, which would hide the explosion from view. Some clarification would help.
 * I noticed the old wording had been restored. I changed it to the "unilluminated side" for clarity. RJH (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (7) The information about the objective needs to be collected together under one heading so that there is a historical flow to the content. Right now it's partly covered in the first paragraph of the "Project", and again in the "Soviet program" section. In between the two is the research and cancellation sections.
 * Clarification: the "Soviet program" section begins with "Another major factor in the project's conception...". This is a continuation of a previous discussion. It's clearly not a continuation of the "Cancellation" section, so it is out of place. It appears to belong just after the first paragraph under "Project".
 * The May 14, 2000 story in the Guardian appears to have a few details that are not covered in the article. For example, Reiffel subsequent opposition to the idea and the destruction of eight of his reports in 1987. You might also mention that in Reiffel's now unclassified study, the team had proposed placing three instrument package on the Moon prior to the explosion so that they could measure the effects.

There are some areas of the writing that may need a little work as well, but others can do a better job of checking that. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) I've amended the lead, (2) deleted the "several possibilities" bit since I couldn't find it in the sources and (6) clarified the "dark side of the moon" mention. (3) I've added in the the Air Force proposed the project, which is supported by the Guardian ref in the same paragraph. (4) I've reworded "a team of ten people" as "a ten-strong team" to be a bit more concise; however, beyond Reiffel and Sagan, it's not known who was on the team. I'd assume experts, obviously, but I don't know what proportion of scientists to military men it was. (5) As for the point on the weight of the device and the distance travelled, I've lost access to the source used for it, though I'm almost certain that it made the case for distance rather than inertia or gravity being the issue - I'll try to track it down again and clarify that, but I'm not sure if it would venture into original research to make additional claims as to the overcoming of Earth's gravity if that's not reported in the source, so I'm loath to add anything of that nature without re-reading that first. (7) I'm also not sure what you mean with the point about information on the project's objective being split up - the "Soviet program" section doesn't cover A119's objective, but it does offer some insight into the impetus behind going ahead with the project, which is relevant to the section as it's specific to discussion on the Soviet counterpart. What sections or lines did you think should be moved? GRAPPLE   X  23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One possibility would be to move the first paragraph of the "Soviet program" section into the lead for the "Project" section, as an additional influence. The last paragraph could be moved to the "Cancellation" section, changing "the Soviet program" to "a corresponding Soviet program". But it's your call really. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've split the "Soviet program" section up into the other headings as you've suggested. I'm loading up the actual released document now to get looking at it for the claim of landing instruments (it's a big file and the lappy's a slow bastard); and I'll hopefully be able to check the book source for the distance-vs-escape velocity issue this coming Wednesday. GRAPPLE   X  18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at this quickly, I don't think I'm going to be able to get it up to FAC standards within my self-allotted 2 hours, if we factor in question-and-answer time, so I'm going to need your help (or someone's help). Please read WP:Checklist and User:Dank/Copy1 ; there are multiple problems here covered on those two pages . I'll get you started.
 * "a top-secret plan developed in the late 1950s by the United States Air Force with the intention of detonating": It doesn't sound like a plan to intend to detonate, it sounds like a plan to detonate. Please see WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "The purpose of such an act would be": Wordy; combine with the previous sentence.
 * "to boost public morale in the United States": to boost US morale changed my mind on this one
 * "which had fallen due to the successes of the Soviet Union": "After" would be better than "due to", and it could be tighter. Please see WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "in the early phases of the space race": raises but doesn't answer the question of how the space race can be divided up into "phases". "early in the space race" is better, at least in the lead section ... you can go into detail about phases in the text if that makes sense.
 * "The details concerning the project came from": actually, not just the details, the very existence of the project. And "revealed" would be more active and more descriptive than "came from".
 * "a retired executive at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration": If he's retired, he isn't there any more. And "retired" has a small WP:DATED problem; assuming he's still living as I write this, he could take up a job at any time ... which wouldn't be relevant to our story here. So: "a former executive of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration"
 * "researching the theoretical effects": I'm guessing they were trying to predict the effects, rather than simply make theoretical statements about the effects. "predicting the effects".
 * That was all from the first paragraph. Someone have a whack at this please and see what you can do.  Once I get started copyediting, I want to get it done within two hours. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think I've covered the points you've addressed. I went with your suggested wording where it was given; and rewrote the first few sentence of the lead to address your first few points. As for the "intention" point, I've changed the phrase to "after the successes" to imply chronology instead of causation. If I've missed anything, or if you see anything else, let me know. Thanks! GRAPPLE   X  18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on this (and it's always nice to see new people at FAC). I'm probably going to need some help with more than just the first paragraph, so I'll wait and hope that more help is coming. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've asked for help on my talk page, at WP:GOCE/FA, and at WT:MHC ... and we've got one bite so far, Nikki helped out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuing. Thanks for you work on the things I brought up; that all looks fine.  Please check my tweaks to the lead section.
 * "apparently primarily because": If something is "apparently" true, it generally means it's an opinion, so it requires attribution. I might be able to fix this when I get further along. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what it means for a project to be funded by the US Army but run under the auspices of the USAF. Was the army keeping tabs on how the money was spent? - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have removed the clause mentioned US Army funding. Not entirely sure where that was meant to have come from if I'm being honest. Perhaps "army" maybe have been a holdover from the article's initial translation and an error on my part. Gone now as it's not in the source (Guardian article). GRAPPLE   X  04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "targeting the dark side of the terminator": presumably, terminator (solar). I don't understand where the "dark side of the terminator" is.
 * Addressed below, it's to one side of the terminator line, that is not presently illuminated. GRAPPLE   X  04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "the potential consequences of an atomic explosion on the Moon. The main objective of the program ... was the detonation of a device, nuclear or otherwise ...": The first sentence implies they weren't researching conventional explosions; the second says they were.
 * Have removed "or otherwise". GRAPPLE   X  04:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "detonation of a device ... to cause an explosion": triply redundant, although it probably wouldn't hurt anything to have two of the three words (detonation, device, explosion ... generally, "devices" explode).
 * Have phrased this whole section as "to cause a nuclear explosion that would be visible..." instead. GRAPPLE   X  04:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Another major factor in the project's conception may have been a rumor": This sounds like someone's opinion.
 * Have rephrased this sentence to remove any direct correlation, simply stating that the rumour had been reported. GRAPPLE   X  04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "planning to launch a hydrogen bomb at the Moon", "by launching a nuclear device at the Moon": Repetitious. Also, I see that one of the sources was in fact representing this as firing a rocket "at" a target on the moon, but that's kind of a cartoonish view of a rocket trip to the moon, particularly in the 1950s ... that is, we should express some skepticism at that image.
 * To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean here. Could you clarify this a little? If the issue is the language (something being fired "at" a target), I don't see how this is a "cartoonish" way of phrasing it - if an area was decided as the location for the explosion, that area would be targeted by the device, would it not? I may be misunderstanding the problem though. Have rephrased the rest to remove the repetition, however, it's just the second point I'm confused about. GRAPPLE   X  04:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not saying that your words are cartoonish ... that came from the source. In an age before integrated circuits, representing a moon shot as a simple matter of "firing a rocket at the moon" was clearly a misrepresentation. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, I think I get you now. I've rephrased that a bit to remove the notion of "launching" anything. GRAPPLE   X  15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "an eclipse due to occur on November 7": an eclipse on November 7
 * Fixed. GRAPPLE   X  04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "News reports of the rumored launch included mention of targeting the dark side of the terminator, a detail which was incorporated into the plans for Project A119; it was also reported that a failure to hit the Moon would likely result in the missile returning to Earth, which would become a factor in the Soviet project's cancellation.": I can't figure out what this sentence is saying. Which detail?  How was it incorporated?  What would become a factor?  Did the news reports say that the problem had already been cancelled?
 * The detail was the target area, I've cleared up this sentence into two sentences which should read more clearly. Also removed the bit about the Soviet project's cancellation. GRAPPLE   X  04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "The project was likely influenced by a similar study initiated by the RAND Corporation in 1956, whose results remain secret to this day.": This raises but doesn't answer the question: if the results remain a secret, how do we know about the study?
 * Ulivi; Harland and Zhou, p.19 - "It was probably based on a still-secret RAND Corporation study, began in 1956, aimed at putting a nuclear warhead on the Moon." That's all the source says on the matter, as it immediately begins discussing Teller's proposals after this sentence. I can't conjecture beyond what's there, though I assume that Teller, Reiffel or both were involved with or aware of the RAND study. GRAPPLE   X  04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If they don't say how they know about the secret study, I'd recommend leaving out that bit, per Hinting at User:Dank/Copy2. It's not uncommon for writers to imply that they know more than they can say, but unverifiable knowledge usually isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. From what I see above, from what I see in the sources, and from the frequest prose problems, I don't have confidence that the text accurately reflects the sources. Does anyone else have access to all the sources? - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * About to go through the article now to sort out those issues, but as for the terminator one, the terminator is the boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated sides of a body - so the "dark side of the terminator" is that side just beyond the illumination. Hope that clears that point up for now anyway. GRAPPLE   X  04:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on this. I've reached my two-hour limit on this FAC, and I only got halfway through.  I'll come back to this if it looks like other reviewers have finished it up. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * Is the "Armour Research Foundation" a government agency?
 * Image description page for File:ComputerHotline_-_Lune_(by)_(5).jpg seems to indicate that a caption attribution is requested. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added an attribution (I assume that's how it's to be done, correct me if I've done it wrong). ARF isn't a government agency, it's a contract research organization working with the Illinois Institute of Technology. Looking at the image in question, I think ARF is credited as the "author" in lieu of the individual authors of the document - would it be better to add the list of ten individual authors mentioned in the document itself? GRAPPLE   X  15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm confused: if ARF isn't a government agency, how can a work where it is the author be "a work of the United States federal government"? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the image was already in use and given its rationale before I came along - I assumed simply that it had been done correctly. My assumption is that the ARF scientists were the authors, but since the work was done for the US Air Force, the research is owned by the government. It was, after all, released by the government under a freedom of information request, which meant it was under their control and not under the ownership of the ARF. GRAPPLE   X  17:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Under their control, but not necessarily under their copyright...is there any way to verify who actually holds the copyright to this document? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clearly work for hire, with the copyright owned by the government under contract. There is no copyright notice in the document, just the standard disclaimer of no contractor ownership of patents. Such a notice was required before 1989 in order for the contractor to claim copyright. without it, the government has unlimited rights. See Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright  Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


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