Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manhattan Project/archive1


 * 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.

Closed -- no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... 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) 00:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment You mention the attempts at gaining intellegence on the German nuclear program, but where similar measures taken on the Japanese nuclear program? You mention the Japanese programs existance very breifly but give no further details.XavierGreen (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article notes that "It was believed that the Japanese atomic program was not far advanced because Japan had little access to uranium ore" Nothing much was therefore done about it until after the war. The linked article provides the details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but was the Manhatten Project "charged with gathering intelligence" on the Japanese program as well? If not it should be stated as such in the text, it currently does not mention that nothing was done about it only that the program was rudimentary. If it was charged with gathering intellegence on it then further details should be given.XavierGreen (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dabs, external links check out, all images have alt text; (no action required)
 * Citation checker reveals one error ( - error was "Multiple references contain the same content")
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb, before Germany or Japan." Maybe "The Manhattan Project was the codename for an Allied project" or something similar (for clarity)?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This sentence is a little repetitive: "Atomic bombs were used in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (atomic twice);
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These two sentences are a little repetitive: "Their calculations indicated that it was within an order of magnitude of ten kilograms, which was small enough to be carried by a bomber of the day. Their March 1940 Frisch–Peierls memorandum resulted in the setting up of the British MAUD Committee, which concluded that..." (both start with 'their'), perhaps reword?
 * Re-worded. Also changed "MAUD" to "Maud" as it was a codename, not an abbreviation,
 * "in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor..." maybe "in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor..." for clarity.;
 * That would make it less clear, as people at the time believed that Germany was responsible for Pearl Harbor. Changed to "in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war by the United States on Germany and Japan" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, I had no idea. Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is some over linking, e.g. University of California, Berkeley;
 * Removed link. This was caused by the fact that the article was not written from top to bottom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This sentence seems a little clumsy to me: "However, the British did not have United States' manpower or resources and soon fell behind."
 * Changed to "However, Britain did not have the manpower or resources of the United States, and despite its early and promising start, the British project soon fell behind its American counterpart." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These sentences are a little repetitive: "Construction was contracted to the M. M. Sundt Company of Tucson, Arizona, with Willard C. Kruger and Associates of Santa Fe, New Mexico as architect and engineer. Construction commenced in December 1942." (both start with 'construction');
 * Changed to "work". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This sentence seems like its missing an 'and', "Various physical methods were considered for uranium enrichment, most of these were carried out at Oak Ridge.";
 * Changed to "most of which" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Grammer seems a little off in this sentence: "Work commenced on 9 July 1944 in September, S-50 began partial operation." Maybe just add a semi-colon after 1944?
 * Added "and". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this may be a typo: "There were pickled to remove dirt" should it be "They were pickled"?;
 * Yes. Changed to " They were pickled to remove dirt and impurities, dipped in molten bronze, tin, and aluminum-silicon alloy, and canned using hydraulic presses and then capped using arc welding under an argon atmosphere." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "retrieved eleven tons of ore from WIFO", IMO this should be "11 tons" per WP:MOSNUM; and
 * Done. Glad you understand "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the punctuation may be incorrect here: "About 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30% of the population of Hiroshima were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured". Maybe "About 70,000–80,000 people, or some 30% of the population of Hiroshima, were killed immediately, and another 70,000 injured." (missing comma I think).Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added comma Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses. This is an excellent article IMO and I'm happy to add my support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A1 comments, mostly good, work required Wow, this is a biggie, good work getting the quality up on this one, it must be a vandalism / kook magnet! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid so. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * References:
 * Watch your terminal full-stops, "Bird, Kai; Sherwin, Martin J. (2005), " has one after the OCLC, for example.
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Rhodes, Richard (1986)." and others, "New York, New York" is a wonderful town, but New Haven and other New Yorks lack states.  Commonly, major places of publication don't absolutely need their state, unless you're going to give state for all locations.
 * For consistency, they all do. Corrected those two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lacks a location, "Feynman, Richard P. (1997),"
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Notes:
 * When citing works in an edited work, the individual author and section should be given, even if only in short citations, "Ahnfeldt, Arnold Lorentz, ed. (1966)," ;
 * Author, Article title, Italics for Journal as per your style? ""Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review, Vol. 25, Nos. 3 and 4, 2002". ornl.gov. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev25-34/chapter1.shtml. Retrieved 2010-03-09."
 * Full stop before following clause? "Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 108–112 The allusion here is to the Italian navigator Christopher Columbus, who reached the Caribbean in 1492."
 * added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Link didn't work, Fain deserves a capitalised name, "Ruhoff & fain 1962, pp. 3–9"
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider drawing your multiple author short citation style closer to your long citation style by replacing ",, &" with "; ; ;"?
 * They are generated with the harvnb template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: …" bad full stop in citation later on, it is right next to a comma
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Schwartz 1998" no page reference given
 * It doesn't seem to have one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Broken links, "Serber 1943, p. 21" ((No such work in bibliography, wrong date?)) ; "Berstein 1976, pp. 206–207" ((No such work, misspelt author?)) ; "Bird 2005, p. 228" ((No such work, failed to list second author?)) ; "Jones 1987, pp. 67–71" ((Just seems broken)) ; "Waltham 1998, pp. 8–9" ((Just plain broken?)) ; "Groves & 1962 78–82" ((No second author on this one?)) ; "Baker, Hecker & Harbur 1983, pp. 144–145" ((Just doesn't work))
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the broken links may be date related, they're dated "Winter/Summer 19XX" or "March 19XX"
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Coming soon. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: I reviewed this for GA in December 2010 and it has been improved since then. I believe that it now meets the A-class criteria. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Einstein–Szilárd letter": if I can get away with it, I'd really prefer "Einstein-Szilárd letter", which is universally hyphenated in the sources, because it's not a letter written and signed by Einstein and Szilárd, it's the letter. There's a current discussion exactly on point at WT:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, so long as the link doesn't break. Good luck with WT:MOS. My own problem is that I can't really see the difference between the different forms of dashes, and cannot type them from my keyboard. So they are just a pain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For at least 99% of our readers, it's a minor or non-existent point, but I wanted to bring it up over there to make sure everyone is on board with allowing (apparent) exceptions to MOS in cases where the "name" of something is so thoroughly supported by sources, dictionaries and style guides. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind after the long discussion at WT:MOS and reinstated the dashes. The bottom line is: it doesn't matter. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Manhattan Project was the codename for an Allied project": up to you, but I like "The Manhattan Project was an Allied project", because that's what we call it now ... I think that should probably go first, then we could mention that it was the codename later. "but was supplanted over time by "Manhattan"" might possibly be sufficient where it is. - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this headed to FAC? I need to be more picky with MOS issues if so. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is, but I can only have one FAC active at a time, and I have a queue of four articles at the moment. Each FAC takes up to three months to compllete, so it is unlikely that it will make it until 2012. Feel free to correct as per the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Major General Leslie R. Groves, Jr. of": Major General Leslie R. Groves Jr. of. See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You used both "U.S." and "US" throughout; changed to "US". See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Army component of the project was officially designated the Manhattan District, US Engineer Department, but was usually referred to as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED). "Manhattan" gradually superseded the official codename for the project.": No edit, just a note. Outside Wikipedia, copy editors often advise making the first few paragraphs as interesting as possible.  But it's quite common on Wikipedia to put details of what something is, was or could be called in the first paragraph, so that the reader who's seen the topic under a different name can figure out as quickly as possible whether they're on the right page.  Personally, I can see it both ways. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Judgment call, and check this for accuracy please, I shortened it to "The Army component of the project was designated the Manhattan District or Manhattan Engineer District, but "Manhattan" gradually superseded the official codename for the project." - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An IP just added "Skinny Minnie" as the name of a third bomb ... I'm getting nothing on a gsearch under that spelling. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Look it up on the Wikipedia! The bomb was eventually called Gilda. It was a little more compilcated than that. What they had in 1945 was another plutonium core and a pile of Fat Man assemblies. The bomb as such was not assembled until 1946. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The project's roots began in 1939 ... The Manhattan Project, which began as a small research program that year": repetition. - Dank (push to talk) 04:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question to Dank: as this one is past the 28 day mark, are you happy enough with it to be listed for closure, or do you think it needs more time? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, still working on it, I'll get it done this evening. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ... or tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "in present day value": I used "in 20 dollars", per WP:DATED, and because readers won't know that you've used a template that auto-updates the figures. - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "It resulted in the creation of several research and production sites whose construction and operations were secret. Research took place at more than 30 sites,": "Research and production took place at more than 30 sites, some secret,". See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at the Hanford Site in eastern Washington state; the uranium enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and the weapons research and design laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico.": "The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at the Hanford Site in eastern Washington state, the uranium enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the weapons research and design laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico." Per Chicago 6.58, usually use semicolons to separate the elements in a list if the elements contain commas, but use commas instead if "ambiguity seems unlikely". - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Berkeley, California": "Berkeley, California,". Also: "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill": "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill,". See WP:MHCL.
 * Hence: President, Barack Obama Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "who had quit because of concerns over lax operational security on 18 May 1942": "who had quit on 18 May 1942 because of concerns over lax operational security". Dates usually go next to whatever it was that happened on that date. See WP:MHCL.
 * "It was temporary because Marshall intended to later relocate to the major construction site.": I deleted this bit; don't simply state intentions, or states of mind in general. They need to be backed up by a fact that demonstrates the intention, a reason that that the intention is important, or preferably, both. - Dank (push to talk) 06:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a fact, backed up by a reference. It explains why the it was called "temporary", and why the MED moved to Oak Ridge in 1942. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs fixin':
 * I see you reverted me on MED ... which is fine, but then it needs to be clear to the reader right from the start what the difference is between the Manhattan Project and the MED. I don't think it's clear right now. - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is made clear in the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Consistency needed in the spelling of Szilárd (or Szilard). I suggest the former since that's the spelling we use in his article.  See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't look at linking issues much, but be aware that sometimes people care at FAC. WP:Linking says not to link United States, etc.  There are some duplicate links that may or may not be a problem at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Multiple linking is permissible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Acronyms are tricky; see WP:MHCL. Most readers will be willing to memorize a few that seem important to the article, but not a lot.  NDRC for instance doesn't seem necessary, because it's only repeated once, a few sentences later. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is because it is a high-level article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The link to "Executive Order 8807" should appear in the endsections. - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What are they? Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several more commas needed; See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk) 05:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know where. Remember that I do not use the Chicago Style guide. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * " This was disappointing;" Say who was disappointed. - Dank (push to talk) 06:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem:
 * The article is way too long for FAC, but I don't know whether it's way too long for A-class. What's the longest article we've passed so far, does anyone know? - Dank (push to talk) 06:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Battle of the Coral Sea (now a featured article) is 156 Kb Wikitext, 62 kB (10236 words) "readable". This article, which is as long as it needs to be, is only 114 Kb Wikitext, but 76 kB (12458 words) "readable".  Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some intractable problems here. Please see WT:MHC, and feel free to brainstorm some solutions. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per discussion at WT:MHC. The problem is that there's still so much to do, and we're out of time. Of course, I'm responsible for part of this, because I started late and the review took me a while. But per the linked discussion, regardless of "who started it", there's a downside to letting MILHIST A-class articles get to FAC if they wind up hurting our reputation among the reviewers there. There are a lot of problems here; the three biggest are that Hawkeye hasn't so far started helping with any of the problems I've pointed out (such as commas), and "doesn't use Chicago", and is reverting many of my edits ... and in my judgment, is making the wrong call on every one. I'm not always right, of course, but given my success as a copy editor so far on Wikipedia, it isn't likely that I'm wrong every time, either. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All the points raised have been dealt with. Saying "needs more commas" is not helpful.


 * Here is an example of a reverted copy edit:
 * Dank: The scientists at the Berkeley conference envisioned creating plutonium in nuclear reactors when uranium-238 atoms absorbed neutrons which had been emitted from fissioning uranium-235 atoms.
 * Hawkeye7: The scientists at the Berkeley conference envisioned creating plutonium in nuclear reactors where uranium-238 atoms absorbed neutrons which had been emitted from fissioning uranium-235 atoms.
 * "In a nuclear reactor" is a place, therefore we need the locative "where" and not the temporal "when". I could have said: "during a nuclear reaction when" but this would miss the point of the sentence, which is about the need to build nuclear reactors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That edit came after my claim that your previous reversions weren't helpful. I stand by the claim. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 24 January 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.