Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ames Project


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Ames Project

 * Nominator(s): 

One of the Manhattan Project's more minor projects, but you cannot make atomic bombs without uranium. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: I did a little copy editing and have a few minor observations, but overall this looks good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think an image in the lead would help to improve it visually, but it isn't a requirement
 * It's pretty frustrating. I don't have any images. The final external link contains plenty of photos that it would be nice to use, but they are copyrighted by Iowa State College. If there were Americans on Wikipedia, one could drive out to the Ames Laboratory and get photos of the plaque outside Wilhelm Hall and the Army-=Navy E flag at the Lab. But there are only about 1,000 active Wikipedians, and as was demonstrated during the Paralympics, few are Americans. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * the images appear to be appropriately licenced to me (kudos on having three featured pictures in the article!)
 * I see some British/Australian English spelling, e.g. "organisations", "organise", "minimise" and "totalled" etc, which should probably use US spelling
 * ✅ Let me know if you find any more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that there are some minor inconsistencies in the referencing style, for instance compare Note 26 (Driggs, F. H. etc) with Note 17 (Goldman), both are journals, but one uses the short citation style, and one the long. Is there a reason for this? Same-same for Note 27, 28 and 61
 * ✅ The ones where I simply referenced the paper were in the long form. Moved them down so everything is in the short form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed a couple of overlinked terms; the script identifies a couple more, but to be honest I think they are ok to remain due to the distance between the the links and the technical nature of the term (I will leave it up to you: the terms are "nuclear chain reaction" and "calcium oxide")
 * ✅ De-linked "nuclear chain reaction" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "developed by Peter P. Alexander used calcium hydride as the reducing agent...": probably don't need the full name here as he has already been introduced
 * ✅ Hadn't noticed that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * minor grammatical issue here: "bombs were being prepared in a 4-inch (10 cm) steel pipes..." --> "bombs were being prepared in 4-inch (10 cm) steel pipes..." or "bombs were being prepared in 4-inch (10 cm) steel pipes"
 * ✅ Deleted the "a" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Production rose from 100 pounds (45 kg) per day in December 1942 to 550 pounds (250 kg) per day by the middle of January": "January 1943"?
 * ✅ Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66
--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At first Spedding had to depart for Chicago soon after the meeting, Clarify that he had to go to Chicago after "each" meeting.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Metal Hybrides Incorporated Typo, I believe
 * ✅ Typo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * large 40,000 W reduction furnaces Presumably watts? Link and spell out term (probably better rendered as kW) and link reduction furnace.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ames Project was producing a ton of highly pure uranium metal a day.[43] Production rose from 100 pounds (45 kg) per day in December 1942 to 550 pounds (250 kg) per day by the middle of January 1943. Chronology here is confused.
 * ✅ Deleted first sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 10-inch (25 cm), 42-inch (110 cm) long suggest changing the order here to 10-inch pipes, 42 inches long, for clarity.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Much the same here as well: 0.75-inch (19 mm) diameter rods 4 inches (100 mm) long, And watch your rounding, 4 inches is actually 102 mm
 * ✅ Switched to cm Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 150 pounds (68 kg) ingots |adj=on
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Link crucible on first use.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * studied uranium-copper alloys, which would occur at the interface this I don't understand.
 * ✅ You put uranium in contact with copper, and you can get a uranium-copper alloy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? I've always understood that an alloy is a mixture and layering them doesn't much seem like mixing them unless there's some sort of reaction at the interface that causes them to intermix. Is that correct? Or is that the phrasing in the original sources?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The source (the MDH) says: One of the materials suggested for such a protective coating was copper, and so the uranium-copper system was experimentally determined to establish the type of alloy that would result at a uranium-copper interface, and the corrosion resistance of such an alloy was studied. I turn therefore to AECD 2717, a declassified report:
 * "In the uranium-copper system one compound,, has been Identified. This compound forms peritectically on cooling at 1052°C (1925°F). It oxidizes slowly in air, is extremely brittle and has a density of 10.6 g/cc. It is face centered cubic with a0 = 7.0208 A. A eutectic exists between the compound and pure copper at 75 weight per cent Cu and 950°C (1740°F)."
 * Included a link to this report in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, that makes more sense. I was thinking more of a sleeve or something done at close to room temperature like electroplating that wouldn't provide enough energy to mix the elements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Administration was delegated to IAR who?
 * It's in the previous paragraph: "The Iowa State Board of Education created the Institute of Atomic Research (IAR)" Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Confirmatory survey of buildings 7, 8, 9 and 10a Bloomfield lamp plant Westinghouse Electric Corporation Bloomfield, New Jersey Put this title in title case.

Support. Excellent work as always. Really can't find much to criticise, but again it's not my are of expertise. The few comments I have: — HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A single-paragraph lead seems quite thin for a 3500-word article.
 * " Unfortunately, the calcium hydride " 'Unfortunately' is arguably editorialising and is frowned upon at FAC


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.