Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Clinton Engineer Works


 * 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) 06:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Clinton Engineer Works

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

A high-level Manhattan Project article. These are surprisingly hard to write. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments (close to a support) from Hchc2009:

Hchc2009 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A very interesting article; having recently done the (rather simpler) Big Inch pipeline, I sympathise with the difficulties! :)
 * That's a pretty good article actually. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "It was in... and was named after... The production facilities are mainly in" - the tense changes here from past to current; it should probably be consistent I think.
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "although the northern part of the site in Anderson County." - a word missing?
 * ✅ Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Worth linking "segregated community" or "black residents"?
 * ✅ Liked to Racial segregation in the United States. I don't think the reader needs to know what black people are. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "On 25 June 1942, the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) S-1 Executive Committee deliberated on where the production facilities of the Manhattan Project should be located." Could this very first sentence be softened slightly for a new reader? I was thinking that if it began something like "In 1942, the Manhattan Project was attempting to construct the first atomic bomb. This would require new production facilities to be built, and on 25 June the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) S-1 Executive Committee met to discuss where these should be located." it would bring the reader in more gradually.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "This portion of the quiet rural area was called Black Oak Ridge..." - it was unclear who this quote was from as it isn't attributed (I'm guessing Stone and Webster)
 * ✅ Stephane Groueff. Added who said it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The 700 tons of graphite blocks" - I wasn't sure that this should be "the", as it seems to be first time the 700 tons is mentioned ( 1,500 long tons is mentioned above). Probably needs a metric/imperial equivalent as well.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Cast uranium billets" - I had to look up what a billet was in this context (I thought it might be a spelling mistake for bullet!) - worth linking to Semi-finished casting products
 * ✅ Done. Well spotted. I would have linked to the Wiktionary otherwise. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "500 mg of plutonium" - mg was expanded when used above
 * ✅ Not anymore. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The usage of "percent" and "%" isn't consistent.
 * ✅ Americans abbreviate per cent to percent, so I have done this per MOS:PERCENT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * happy? This has already had an image review and otherwise looks good to go. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, happy, now supporting. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * No issues with external links (no action req'd).
 * Most of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement).
 * No duplicate links (no action req'd).
 * Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
 * Captions looks fine (no action req'd).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
 * "...and shipped the first few hundred grams of this to Los Alamos in March 1944...", what was at Los Alamos? Perhaps a wikilink or a brief explanation what occurred there (suggestion only)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some inconsistency with "Stone & Webster" vs "Stone and Webster"
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I did a copy edit and made few MOS changes, pls see here
 * Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 15 April 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. 