Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/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.

Promoted EyeSerene talk 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

A techno-military article about the famous Manhattan Project, which developed the first nuclear weapons. This article is a top-level one, rich in links to its many sub-articles. Like the project, the article covers many administrative, military and engineering subjects. I hope that the most important sub-articles can one day be lifted to form a featured topic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you try hovering your mouse over the map of the US? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It's excellent to see a high-quality article on this important topic and I think that it meets the A class criteria. My suggestions for further improvement are:
 * I think that the military unit infobox is a bit confusing - it's labelled 'Manhattan Engineer District' (which will confuse readers), and identifies it as having taken part in fighting in Europe, which could very easily be misunderstood.
 * The infobox is correct though. Added a bit to the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing - I'd suggest structuring it in chronological order so that it starts with the first bomb used in the Trinity test and finishes with the Nagasaki bomb
 * Re-ordered it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The committee reported to Roosevelt in November that "it would provide a possible source of bombs with a destructiveness vastly greater than anything now known."" - is unclear - this implies that it was the committee that would produce bombs. More generally, I think a sentence is needed about what the Einstein–Szilárd letter covered.
 * Added a sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph which begins with 'The British and Americans exchanged nuclear information' seems to contain too many uses of the word 'British'
 * Re-worded to remove a few uses. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the problem with the centrifuge process that led to it being not used?
 * In view of the fact that it is not covered elsewhere, I have expanded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the bombs probably would have been used on Germany had they been ready in time should be noted in the part of 'Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki' section which discusses target selection (the 509th Bomb Group apparently trained to operate against either Germany or Japan) Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just tried that, and the links work well (I'm using Google Chrome as my browser if it makes any difference). Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - I reviewed this article during the last ACR and believed it met the A class criteria then. IMO this article has improved further since then. Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments: - Dank (push to talk) 04:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS:BIO prefers no comma before "Jr." except in special cases.
 * Do you want to initiate a rename for Walter S. Carpenter, Jr.? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'd really like is to change MOS:BIO, because I usually see these names with commas, but I stopped fighting the style guidelines a while ago. If you want me to reinstate all these commas, we can always cross our fingers at FAC, or argue that they're the preference of the individual (and they usually are).  If I do reinstate the commas, then we need a second comma after "Jr." unless that's the end of the sentence (with minor exceptions). - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about "UC Berkeley" (after the first "University of California, Berkeley")?
 * I would rather not. I try to avoid abbreviations whenever possible. And where I live, "UC" means "University of Canberra". Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okey doke. The 4-word phrase sounds fine once or twice to me ... people generally shorten it in some way if they're repeating it, but what you've got is basically fine. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't follow your preference for "At a meeting between President Roosevelt, Bush and Vice President Henry A. Wallace"; the top 3 US style guides say "between" is wrong here. Should I look at more style guides?  Would either "of" or "among" work for you?
 * Statement on the meeting between President Obama and Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev "meeting between A and B" ; "meeting of A" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, meeting between two ... not between three. Chicago, AP and the NY Times Style Guide all say to avoid "between" with three, unless you're saying something like "trade between the European countries", where it's clear that you mean trade pairwise between the countries. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage, p. 180 for a discussion of this weird idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally, someone is quoting a style guide (and an excellent one, if a bit worn). Do it again, and I'll give you a (very small) barnstar.  But in every one of the examples I read of "between" used with more than two objects (reading quickly), it means either "pairwise" or "one compared with all the others" or "in-between" or something idiomatic ("between you and me and Jack Mum").  None of those meanings seems to apply here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Idiomatic to you often sounds normal to me; for example, we often use "amongst" instead of "among"; the latter may sound better to American ears. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The typeface is too small for me to make it out, but does the map next to "Oak Ridge" say "Alabama Ornance"? Should that be "Ordnance"?
 * Yes, but I am unsure how to fix it. May need to round up some help. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have removed the subtitle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked for help with WP:MHCL. Here's the diff of what I've done so far tonight; please have a look at the commas I added (or subtracted, to avoid having to add a second comma).  (Commas don't show up well in Wikipedia's diff engine, but the "improved diff" version of WikEd shows them nicely.) [More to come tomorrow]. - Dank (push to talk) 04:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff so far today, up to Manhattan Project. The majority of my edits are per just one easy-to-follow rule: WP:MHCL.  I don't know of a style guide that disagrees with that point.  (References on request.)  You offered before to fill in the commas if I told you where; those are the ones I'd like you to do, starting at Manhattan Project.  I'll get the rest of the copyediting, including all the commas that follow other rules. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, never mind (for this article), I'm farther along now and I haven't seen too many of these. I'm getting them as I go. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on undersecretary vs. under secretary, but you use both and it's safest to be consistent at FAC. I see "undersecretary" more often. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Back in the the 1940s "Undersecretary" was used in AmEng and "Under-Secretary" in BritEng; but the former has been on the retreat for some decades now, and the US government now uses "Under Secretary". Note that the article is called Undersecretary. Should it be renamed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your call. WNW gives "in U.S. government, under secretary", as you say, and gives the main spelling as "undersecretary". - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed it to "Under Secretary" :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting at Manhattan_Project, I'm inclined to leave the % symbols alone. You're averaging more than 5 % symbols per subsection at that point, and I interpret WP:% to mean that that's enough that we don't have to convert them to "percent", but some at FAC may disagree.
 * WP:% says that we can use % "in scientific or technical articles"; I would argue that this is a scientific and technical article. One problem: "percent" is used in the lead. (Do you also have "pergallon" and "perdiem" in AmEng?) (Originally I wrote 7‰ but then decided on 0.7%.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got a good argument for "%" in the lead, now that I see we'll have to keep them elsewhere, if you want to change it back. I'm happy either way.  It's helpful at FAC whenever we can make the argument, "We know this is a technical article, but we worked really hard to give it a non-technical look-and-feel in the first part of the article." - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I get the meaning right here? "A cost plus fixed fee contract was negotiated, eventually totalling $2.5 million."  Although "cost plus fixed fee contract" is a standard term, would "a contract with fixed fees" be an oversimplification?  I'm thinking readers may get a little lost on "cost plus fixed fee contract". - Dank (push to talk) 04:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be wrong, I'm afraid. See Cost Plus Fixed Fee. There is a link to that article. Unfortunately, the article does not explain  the important part CPFF had in winning WWII, nor the fiasco when Dick Cheney tried to substitute fixed price contracts in the early 1990s. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... yes, that would be a great article, I'd be happy to help with that one. So, what I had is right, right?  "A cost plus fixed fee contract was negotiated, eventually totalling  $2.5 million." (I really want to stick some hyphens in there, is that doable?) - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are "Furgussen" and "Ferguson" the same company? - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there's an issue I don't touch except when it's an easy call, both here and at J. Robert Oppenheimer, because it's tough and subjective: how much detail is too much?  If we're talking about weapons engineering, then I draw an analogy from science fiction movies ... viewers can be entertained even when they have no idea what's going on, as long as it sounds exciting and they're vaguely familiar with the words, but they may lose interest if the details have a "mundane" feeling.  Personally, in "Steam obtained from the nearby K-25 powerhouse at a pressure of 100 pounds per square inch (690 kPa) and temperature of 545 °F (285 °C) flowed downward through the innermost 1.25 inches (32 mm) nickel pipe ...", I'd lose the "innermost 1.25 inches (32 mm)".  We regularly get fights at FAC over questions of the right level of detail, but I'm not convinced that the fights produce a better outcome than the personal preferences of the writers ... and even when the end product is better, it's not worth the time IMO ... so I don't get involved. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got two subheadings named "Weapon design"; one should be renamed per WP:HEADINGS. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally don't fix unit conversion problems per my standard disclaimer. You've got a number of convert templates that need "|adj=on". - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this work? "The purification methods that were eventually used in 231-W were still unknown when construction commenced on 8 April 1944, but the plant was complete and the methods were selected by the end of the year." - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Consistency is needed on code name or codename and code-named or codenamed. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Standardised on "codename". Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow what "With all the effort to avoid predetonation" means in context. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewrote it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "While most of the experiments conducted were of slight value, important lessons were learned concerning the mundane but vital aspects of conducting a test.": It would be better if this said either more or less; it raises more questions than it answers. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewrote it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick note on "however"; it had crossed my mind to talk about this while I was copyediting this one, and I responded to Nikki yesterday when she asked someone never to start a sentence with "but". Just now, I reverted Ian on this point, so let's talk about it; I'm not wedded to the idea, but ... well, you'll see.  The text was: "The thermal diffusion process was developed by US Navy scientists, and was not one of the enrichment technologies initially selected for use in the Manhattan Project. But in April 1944, Oppenheimer noted the progress of Philip Abelson's experiments on thermal diffusion ..."  Ian changed this to "In April 1944, however, Oppenheimer ..."  Chicago, at 5.206, says: "There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as and, but, or so."  (They go on in the same tone of voice for a while ... odd for Chicago, which suggests that they feel really strongly about this.)  5.207 says:
 * However has been used as a conjunction since the fourteenth century. Like other conjunctions, it can be used at the beginning of a sentence.  But however is more ponderous and has less impact than the simple but.  However is more effectively used within a sentence to emphasize the word or phrase that precedes it: The job seemed exciting at first.  Soon, however, it turned out to be exceedingly dull. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why I preferred using it in the sentence you note above. I don't deny that in AmEng it's quite acceptable to start a sentence with But, however in this instance I felt it read better the way I rewrote it. Because this is an American-themed article I shan't push it (though if it was BritEng I would) and you should feel free to change back the other instance I altered before I saw your comment here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I respect your eyes and ears, and our rules about AmEng are of course constrained by the reality that everyone reads our articles, especially articles like this one, so I hope it will sound right to everyone. Basically, I have three requests, and I think these are okay outside AmEng but tell me if they aren't: 1. use however when you want to draw attention to a surprising contrast, 2. if the sentence or clause begins with however, it's better to follow it with a comma, and 3. if however follows a word or phrase, then that word or phrase is the surprising contrast you're pointing to. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I originally wrote it the way Ian phrased it. Dank changed it to the form beginning with "but". For me, no amount of Canberra Times editors preaching that it is okay to start (but not end) sentences with "and" or "but" will erase years of teachers drilling us not to start sentences with conjunctions. The Commonwealth Style Manual allows "however" (and nonetheless, thus, accordingly etc) to be used as conjunctions, but only after a semicolon (and not at the end of a sentence). Teacher used to strike out usage for emphasis.
 * I'm cool with that preference; remind me if I ever forget. I just changed "But in April 1944" to "Then in April 1944" and "But the biggest problem" to "The biggest problem".  "However" wouldn't be my choice in either sentence; it signifies something surprising and contrasting. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe "Silverplate, an operation to modify B-29s ..." or "Operation Silverplate, the modification of B-29s" instead of "Silverplate, the modification of B-29s".
 * Sometimes you italicize Thin Man, Fat Man and Little Boy and sometimes you don't. My call would be not to italicize; the capitals get the idea across.  It wouldn't be wrong, exactly, if done consistently, but the idea of italics is to designate the title of some "larger" unit ... we italicize books but not chapters, ships but not parts of ships, etc.  Bombs, even famous bombs, seem like the smaller unit to me, compared with for instance Enola Gay. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm doing this one as I go, but FYI: "postwar" is a non-hyphenated adjective (not adverb) in American dictionaries. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this is equivalent to what you wrote, but revert me if I'm wrong: "no alternatives were considered after the Japanese rejection of the Potsdam Declaration."
 * I was just trying to figure out whether to revert myself on "393d" -> "393rd" when Ian did it for me :) None of the examples in Chicago (at 8.111) or AP are helpful.  All the USAF squadrons on Wikipedia that I could find use "d".  OTOH, when I browse the external links to see how people refer to their own squadrons, they generally use "rd".  AP and Chicago both recommend "rd" in general, although Chicago mentions that "d" is possible in some contexts, and I'm inclined to use that as my weapon if someone says at FAC they don't think readers will know what "393d" means.  - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Linking it helps (I thought it already was but apparently not)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Certainly as high a caliber of work as FAC is used to seeing; I just wonder if any of the reviewers will be willing to read this long, somewhat technical article carefully.  Can't be helped, I suppose; as you say, this is a summary article that branches out in a lot of different directions. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- Well I managed to get round to reviewing it this time, as I told Hawkeye I would. A tremendous undertaking and, apart form my usual&mdash;in this case fairly minor&mdash;copyedits, I really can't fault it for prose, referencing, detail, structure and supporting material -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Overall I believe that this article meets our A-class requirements and I am happy to support its promotion, however, I have a couple of comments:
 * I made a couple of small tweaks, which you might like to just check you agree with.
 * one dead link according to the link checker tool:
 * in the Gaseous diffusion section, should it be "totalling" or "totaling"? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.