Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Calutron


 * 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) 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Calutron

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Latest in the Manhattan Project series. If you are looking to build your own atomic bomb at home, then you probably want one of these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Diagram_of_uranium_isotope_separation_in_the_calutron.png: source image is unsourced - any idea where it came from? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was originally downloaded from here. The image link is broken now, but it is archived here. Nowadays, everybody uses the Wikimedia version, as it has been retouched. I have every reason to believe that Westinghouse draftsman Robert Hile Best drew the image as claimed. I have verified that he worked on the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * "...which was small enough to be carried by a bomber of the day..." I wonder if you need to clarify this as "bomber aircraft"? I'd guess most readers would know what was meant here but maybe the 12 year-olds that apparently read the encyclopedia wouldn't (suggestion only).
 * Linked bomber. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "...The principle of electromagnetic separation is simple..." perhaps only to nuclear physicists though, or at least those that understand these things? Maybe either drop this part or reword. One suggestion might be "The principle of electromagnetic separation was considered simple..."
 * Changed to "The principle of electromagnetic separation was that" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "...The operator sat in the open end, from whence he..." were all the operators male? From reading the article it sounds like quite a number of the workers on the project were women so the use of "he" might need to be tweaked.
 * At this point, yes, but to avoid confusion I have changed it to "The operator sat in the open end, from whence the temperature could be regulated, the position of the electrodes adjusted, and even components replaced through an airlock while it was running." Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "...Eventually, 14,700 short tons (13,300 tonnes; 430,000,000 troy ounces) were used..." → "...Eventually, 14,700 short tons (13,300 tonnes; 430,000,000 troy ounces) of silver were used..." (minor nitpick, suggestion only)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is some inconsistency in the presentation of building names (hyphens vs endashs), for instance "9204–1" vs "9201-1" (not sure if I mucked this up at some point with a script edit, can't remember - apologies if I did).
 * Not sure. Changed to use the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "...This consisted of Alpha product enriched to 13–15%..." and "...enriched to as high as 89%..." probably should be "percent" for consistency with the rest of the article and MOS:PERCENT.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * is there a typo or missing word here: "...with a calutron using a magnetic taken from Germany..."? Specifically "a magnetic..."
 * Should be "magnet" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some inconsistency in presentation of units, consider "180 degrees" vs " 180°" (and other examples of degrees vs °)
 * Standardised on the degree symbol. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "...for India's first Nuclear test on 18 May 1974..." is the capitalization of "Nuclear" correct here?
 * Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some inconsistency in date format in references, consider: "Simpson, John (October 1991)." vs "Gongpan, Li; Zhizhou, Lin; Xuyang, Xiang; Jingting, Deng (1992-08-01)." (and others) - date in full vs yyyy-mm-dd.
 * All should be full date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems. I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)


 * Since the character's name isn't "Calutron" or likely to be confused with that, I recommend deleting this. It sends the wrong message, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I deleted the formula for uranium bromide to avoid nested parentheses. I think you're probably fine with no link and no formula, but in case you want readers to be able to find the formula, I've created a redlink ... maybe someone will create a nice stub. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: I made a few tweaks, but otherwise it looks pretty good to me. These are my changes: Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 11 November 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.