Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Chicago Pile-1


 * 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) 08:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Chicago Pile-1

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Continuing the series on the Manhattan Project, we have CP-1, the first nuclear reactor. I find it fascinating that you can pile rocks in a certain way, and amazing things happen, things that can only be predicted by science, and by that of phenomena far too small to be observed directly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: Another good article in the series ... it makes a technical topic very readable. From now on, I'll be doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. So, here's your peer review: I've copyedited down to Government support and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a stopper at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Support: I think everything below has been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Comments: I'm having some difficulty following the narrative. I think a few explanatory inserts would really help. OK, only a few remaining comments. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pupin Physics Laboratories - its never mentioned where this is, and it took me out of the article to find this was at Columbia. That means all of this started outside Chicago, which seems like an important point.
 * But it says: At Columbia University in New York... Szilard obtained permission from the head of the Physics Department at Columbia, George B. Pegram... They conducted a simple experiment on the seventh floor of Pupin Hall at Columbia, using a radium-beryllium source to bombard uranium with neutrons. That's three mentuions of Columbia!Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the context is not direct. The earlier mention of Columbia is about Dunning et al, Fermi's name is sort of buried in the middle. It is not obvious that he was driving the development of the pile there. I don't know, is it too much to simply place his name at the front of the list? Is the ordering deliberate or just the way you typed them in? Was this primarily Dunning? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ THey were in alphabetical order. Moved Fermi to the front. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The pile was built in September - this isn't CP-1, so then CP-1 wasn't the first pile. The term "successful" or "to reach criticality" is needed somewhere, likely the lede.
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Harold Urey and John Dunning, and was hesitant to add a third. - but if the earlier pile was built there, then they already had a third?
 * ✅ No, they were involved with the SAM Laboratory, working on uranium enrichment. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * engaged in two other Manhattan Project - but it seems the Manhattan Project didn't even exist at this point?
 * No, the project existed, it just didn't have that name yet. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Before leaving for Chicago, Fermi's team made one last attempt - "...to build a working pile at Columbia"?
 * ✅ Added "at Columbia". Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the cans had absorbed neutron - missing the S at the end, and also an explanation of this entire issue. How did they determine this was happening?
 * Rhodes doesn't say. I know how I would have done it: by measuring the induced radioactivity in the cans. Or by looking up the cross-sections of iron and tin on the wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * structure was then canned - I'm a bit confused by this. If the cans were absorbing the neutrons, why didn't this can do the same thing?
 * It's on the outside of the reactor, so it doesn't matter what happens to the neutrons there. The purpose of the canning is to prevent the fission products getting everywhere. Remember that some, like radon and xenon, are gases at room temperature. They'll get everywhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, was it "on the outside of the reactor"? I read the description to imply that each block-of-graphite-and-fuel-pellet was in a separate can. That would definitely explain my confusion, but is that how it actually was? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The spherical design of CP-1 was to minimise surface area, thereby reducing the opportunity for neutrons to escape. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the courts under West Stands were still used for playing squash and handball - sooooo, what, this was still actively being used at the time? did they just kick the people out?
 * Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The nearby North Stands had a pair of two ice skating rinks on the ground floor - which has what to do with what? this seems like unrelated trivia unless I'm missing something.
 * It means that it was very cold. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps "The rooms were so cold that the nearby North Stands hosted two ice skating rinks in them." Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Already added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Fermi came to Compton with a proposal to build the experimental pile under the stands at Stagg Field - but didn't they already take over that space? if this is the first time they consider it, the entire section needs to be re-arranged to make it flow more smoothly. If it isn't, I'm confused as to what's going on.
 * ✅ They already had the space. Added: While the subcritical piles posed little danger, Groves felt that it would be prudent to locate a critical pile—a fully functional nuclear reactor— at a more remote site. I can tell you don't share the general's concerns about the dangers nuclear reactors. You have to understand, though, that no one had built one before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In a nuclear reactor, there are delayed neutrons - this whole section just comes right out of the blue, and really needs to be separated out and lengthened. For instance...
 * ✅ Expanded it a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With a k close to one, this delay allows the reactor to be controlled, and gives time to shut it down - this statement is totally unexplained.
 * I thought the bit about prompt and delayed neutrons explained it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. Would you like me to take a stab at it?
 * Sure. Go ahead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * and by the 36th it was only 149 - "only" is unexplained, it is only later that the number 1 is suggested. If that is the target, I'm mystified to what exactly it is counting?
 * ✅ Slightly re-worded: a metric that counted down to one as the pile approached criticality Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * accommodate the rapidly increasing current - current of what? Neutrons? If so, flux is the right term here.
 * ✅ No, the electrical current from the spiffy BeF3 detectors. Through them, you can read the neutron flux with a galvanometer. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Support: I had a read through (making a couple of tweaks as I went) and after I recovered from my headache, wrote the following suggestions:
 * "File:PupinHall11.16.08ByLuigiNovi3.jpg" --> probably needs a FoP-US licence added to the image description page
 * "File:HD.5A.025 (10692802156).jpg" --> the date on the image description page probably should be adjusted; licence possibly should be changed from "PD-USGov-POTUS" to "PD-USGov-DOE"
 * as per the above for "File:HD.5A.026 (10692858884).jpg" (date and licence);
 * "File:HD.5A.043 (10555587426).jpg" --> the description and date fields probably could be filled in/expand; licence seems ok to me, though
 * "File:HD.5A.027 (10542723446).jpg" --> licence seems fine, but the date on the Commons description page probably should be tweaked
 * as above for "File:HD.5A.028 (10542725116).jpg" (date)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "File:Henry Moore Nuclear Energy !.JPG" : not sure about this one...probably should be a non free file in my opinion as FoP doesn't apply to sculptures apparently...but anyway, the law is an ass as they say, so I will leave it up to you to decide what you want to do with it
 * ✅ There's a long and fascinating story behind the tag on this, involving a giant apple core, but the moral is that (1) WMF doesn't care about copyright; (2) Americans believe US law applies everywhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the duplicate link checker tool identifies "uranium enrichment" as being overlinked
 * ✅ unlinked
 * "While a 25 feet (7.6 m) cube-shaped..." --> "25-foot"? (probably just need to add |adj=on to the convert template)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unlike later reactors, it has no radiation shielding or cooling system, as was only..." --> " Unlike later reactors, it had no radiation shielding or cooling system, as it was only..."
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "manufacturers in 4.25 by 4.25 inches" --> "4.25-by-4.25-inch" (adj=on should fix this)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * not sure about the language used here: "What could possibly go wrong, apart from a catastrophic nuclear meltdown blanketing one of the United States' major urban areas in radioactive fission products?". By framing this as a question, the writing style is leaning more to the dramatic than the encyclopedic. I'd suggest rewording;
 * ✅ Sigh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * capitalisation: "release the Zip" (earlier you use "zip")
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "which was drank from paper cups..." --> "which was drunk from paper cups"? or "which they drank from paper cups"?
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * wording tweak: " investigate research related..." --> "undertake research related..."?
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "dangerous drop in his white blood cell..." --> "cells"?
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Overall, I believe that this article meets the A-class criteria, although my brain was too small to comprehend the science involved. Anyway, great work as usual, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review Rupert. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is this here and at GAN simultaneously?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is "I screwed up" a good enough reason? Normally, I would send a completed article to GA so it could run on DYK. But it is not eligible for DYK, as it has been run in OTD. So I sent it straight to A class. Then I forgot that it was here, and based on an estimate that it might not be possible to send it to FAC after all, nominated it for GA. When I realised that it was on both review queues, my initial reaction was to withdraw the GA nomination. But I couldn't find a rule on A class or GA saying that it couldn't be on both queues. If you can point to one, I can withdraw it from that queue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No need, I'll go through it at GAN and see what, if anything, really remains to be done. Then I'll probably give a support here once that's done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Support I've finished the review at GAN and believe that it meets the A-class criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - technically this article is well over my head, but I've read it through for a gross error check nonetheless. Some minor (possibly ignorant) points:
 * All the tool checks seem ok (dabs, external links, no unnecessary dup links, no alt text but that's not an ACR req, Earwig tool detects no issues with close paraphrase )
 * Is the tense correct here: "Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1) is the world's first nuclear reactor to achieve criticality", I'd have thought "Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1) was the world's first nuclear reactor to achieve criticality" might be more correct.
 * ✅ Part of a conflict with another editor over whether a reactor that has all the fuel removed and is then buried is still a reactor or not. I think not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Initially nothing registered on the oscilloscope, but then Zinn realized that it was not plugged in." Whilst a somewhat humorous anecdote I wonder if it is really relevant?
 * ✅ Oh very well. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * there seems to be a typo here: "warning of German nuclear weapon project"
 * ✅ Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a missing word here: "...that had originally built as a rackets court..."?
 * ✅ Deleted "that had" Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Unlike later reactors, it has no radiation shielding..." → "Unlike later reactors, it had no radiation shielding..."
 * ✅ See the answer to Q2. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "The next day, 2 December 1942, was bitterly cold." Was the weather relevant to the experiment? If not this might not be needed in the article.
 * ✅ Deleted "was bitterly cold" Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Same with the number of men and women at the experiment. I couldn't quite see its relevance (although the number of scientists present probably is).
 * ✅ Historians have put a bit of effort into getting the list of names right. A couple of scientists were removed from accounts for political reasons in the 1950s, and Leona Woods was written out of the story in the early 1960s when it was not considered a proper activity for a woman. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "...which they drank from paper cups." Was the material that the cups were made of relevant to the experiment also (e.g. safety precaution etc) or is it included because it might be seen as ironic to drink wine from a paper cup (to some people)? If it was relevant perhaps clarify what that significance was, if not then I'd question the point of it.
 * ✅ It is to get around some grammatical issues. In some places apparently, you can't say that they drank the bottle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Overall this article looks in very good shape to me and I think it easily meets the A class criteria. The only possible issue I see is that some of the detail seems a little unimportant (the points I've listed above). You might consider whether they are necessary, or if removing them might result in a (slightly) more focused article. That said there are really only a few examples of this so I do not feel it is a significant issue at any rate (and others may disagree with me anyway).
 * Hopefully my cmts are in someway helpful. All the best taking this further. Anotherclown (talk)
 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (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.