Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British hydrogen bomb programme


 * 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

British hydrogen bomb programme

 * Nominator(s): 

After High Explosive Research comes the British hydrogen bomb programme. Hawkeye7  (talk)  06:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, this looks good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks and I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * at five paragraphs, the lead is possibly a bit long (I believe four is the recommended length). If you merge the short first paragraph with the second, this would be resolved without losing anything
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "File:Operation Grapple May 1957.jpg": recommend adding an English description to the description page
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "File:James Chadwick, Leslie Groves, Richard Tolman, & Henry deWolf Smyth.jpg": currently has a date of 2013, but suggest adjusting this to the date of when the photo was taken
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "File:Survey Ship HMNZS Lachlan in Dusky Sound (12954922013).jpg": the description probably needs tweaking slightly to remove language that appears in the voice of the source (i.e "For updates on our..." and "follow us on Twitter")
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * there are a few overlinked terms: John Anderson, 1st Viscount Waverley, Soviet Union, Los Alamos Laboratory, Blue Danube (nuclear weapon), boosted fission weapon
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "device in the "megaton range" — one with": should be an unspaced emdash or spaced endash
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * not a lot stood out WRT the prose, but I will have another read tomorrow with fresh eyes
 * final suggestion, I notice that the article only has a couple of categories. I wonder if there might be a few more that are relevant, but it is only a minor thing, of course. Anyway, all the best for taking this article towards FA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work as always. A few comments: I made a handful of edits to trim down some details, particularly dates, but otherwise there's not a lot else to criticise. The content is outstanding, but it could probably be trimmed by a few hundred words to avoid overloading the reader with names and dates and bits of background that didn't directly affect this programme. Hope this helps. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  11:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A few mentions of the United States could probably be shortened to US (or U.S. if you prefer).
 * from a Vickers Valiant bomber piloted by Isn't the type of plane and certainly the name of the pilot a little too much detail, especially in the lead?
 * ✅ I didn't think so, but I've dropped it. (The reference to the plane and pilot, not the bomb.)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The term was already familiar That sentence doesn't seem like a particularly crucial detail in the background.
 * ✅ Removed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we pare back the background section at all? I know you're summarising lengthy articles on important subjects (I've reviewed many of them!) but at some point you have to send the reader to one of those articles if they want more detail. We don't need extensive detail on the Manhattan Project and nuclear weapons development, just enough that the reader can tell where this bit of history fits into the jigsaw.
 * ✅ I have pared the section back to half its size.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whose quote is "became very much less special"?
 * Margaret Gowing. Per the footnote.    Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the bit about Canada becoming a partner immediately relevant to this article?
 * ✅ No; removed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  D notice No. 25 prohibited D Notices don't prohibit, per se, they're officially just requests even though it's almost unheard of for the mainstream media to defy one
 * ✅ How about "forbid"? We have a similar system in Australia. They are nominally voluntary too, but the government can always amend the Crime Act to add penalties.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  after the October 1951 election is probably unnecessary; stating that he replaced Attlee is probably sufficient for the purposes of this article, like you do with Eisenhower and Truman later on.
 * ✅ Done.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You can probably get away with referring to the Marquess of Salisbury as just Salisbury on subsequent mentions
 * ✅ Is that how they are normally referred to? Done.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * British aristocratic titles are a little weird, but I'm certain this is correct; cf Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, who is invariably known as "Wellington". HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  15:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hulme's daughter's murder conviction seems a little off-topic; we don't really need to know much about these people beyond their involvement in in the H bomb project.
 * ✅ Done.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * by a Vickers Valiant bomber of No. 49 Squadron RAF piloted by Wing Commander Kenneth Hubbard I can see the case for including the aircraft type, but do we really need to know the pilot and the squadron he belonged to? In the Operation Grapple article, sure, but this article should be a higher-level overview.
 * ✅ Originally, the Grapple article was very sparse. I overhauled it after writing this one.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the responses and the paring back, so support. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  15:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review!  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day Hawkeye, this is looking good. A few minor comments from me: Another excellent article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * link Klaus Fuchs
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * consistency between Joe 4 and Joe-19
 * ✅ Note that the Joe 1 article is in two minds over the matter.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * second instance of John Corner should just be Corner
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 16 October 2017 (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.