Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British contribution to the Manhattan 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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

British contribution to the Manhattan Project

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Originally, the Manhattan Project group of articles included Tube Alloys, but this is about the British efforts independent of the American Manhattan project. (I may fix it up one day.) So I created a new article about the British involvement in the Manhattan Project. The name comes from a number of articles with titles like "Australian contribution to..." Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: great work as usual. I have a couple of nitpicks/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Major-General" or "Major General"...both are currently used (also see below);
 * inconsistent presentation: some ranks appear hyphenated (e.g. Brigadier-General), but others do not (e.g. Vice Admiral);
 * I had thought that BrEng uses hyphens, but the British Army website does not. (Debretts is annoyingly inconsistent.) So removed the hyphens. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tube Alloys were..." or "Tube Alloys was"? I think it should be "was"...but currently both constructions are used;
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * overlink: Imperial Chemical Industries, German nuclear energy project;
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * is there a place of publication for the Priestley work?
 * Auckland. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - I reviewed at GA and have checked over the changes made since then and believe it now meets the A-class criteria. I made a few minor edits whilst proof reading, pls see here . Anotherclown (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All fine. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I'm sorry, but I have to be tougher on lead sections these days. Per WP:LEAD, "Redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence", and "simply describe the subject in normal English". The first sentence said "The British contribution to the Manhattan Project involved participation in most aspects of the project", and that's not going to fly; details on request. I took a stab at it, but you might want to mention other types of contributions to make it work. LEAD recommends against bolding in these cases, but some people like to put the most important proper noun in bold, and I have no objection if you want to ... that would be Manhattan Project. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. MOS:BOLDTITLE says: include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English.. I've tried re-wording the first sentence.
 * Not a problem, I'll throw this into the pile of TFA issues to sort out. Whether it's okay at FAC will be up to the FAC reviewers.
 * A class criterion A4: The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (NB: I removed a false title; British reviewers regard this as an Americanism.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a false title in the sense that that article defines it, though it may well be regarded as a false title by some. I have no problem with your edit.
 * Apart from the issue I mentioned, which may or may not be a problem at TFA, the lead looks great. Stopping there per WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thought, maybe I'm being a little harsh. I'll finish up, revert your edit to the first sentence, and support. Whether the coords want to promote this if you revert back is up to them. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * " The two ten-stage machines were delivered in August and November 1943, but by this time it had been overtaken by events.": I don't know what that means.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "As a result, Chadwick and Oliphant were able to persuade Groves to reduce K-25's enrichment target": Sorry, as a result of what? What persuaded Groves? - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Taking a guess it's "this opinion" that persuaded him, so maybe change "1944. As a result, Chadwick" to "1944, but Chadwick". - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * " Chadwick and Groves reached an agreement by which ore would be shared equally.": I went with " Chadwick and Groves had reached ..."; fix that if it's wrong.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Note that this is the version I'm supporting; whether future versions should be promoted will be up to other reviewers and the coords. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits have dealt with all of my concerns, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review -- I daresay AC checked during his GA review but I gave licenses the once-over anyway and found no issues. Also tweaked a phrase or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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. 