Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Metallurgical Laboratory


 * 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) 05:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Metallurgical Laboratory

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

One of the Manhattan Project's key sites. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Personnel and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC. If you take the article there, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Support: looks like it is up to your usual standard, Hawkeye. I have a couple of minor nitpicks, but overall I believe this meets the A-class criteria: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Dan, given that this has been open over two months now, and reviewers have been hard to come by, I wonder if you wouldn't mind running through the article as the third reviewer? I know you are scaling back your involvement at A-class, though, so no dramas if you are too busy. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping ... it's in my list of notifications, but I didn't see it, and I don't remember a notification from 6 days ago. Not sure what's up with that. Anyway: we have a slow crisis at TFA ... because only about 20 FAs are being promoted each month, TFA is having to pull in older, more problematic FAs over time. I would rather review the article for prose when it gets to FAC. Thanks (to you and AC) for your amazing work at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for all you do, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * there are a couple of duplicate links identified by the script: cyclotron; neutron cross section; neutron; George Herbert Jones Laboratory; University of Caliafornia, Berkeley; United States Atomic Energy Commission;
 * ✅ Resolved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hanford Engineer Works in Washington state..." --> "Hanford Engineer Works in the state of Washington"?
 * ✅ meh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * not really relevant to this review, but do you think Chicago Pile-4 should be created as a redirect to Experimental Breeder Reactor I?
 * ✅ Done. My sources all refer to it as ZIP. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Szilard drafted a confidential letter to the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, warning of the possibility of a German nuclear weapon project, and convinced his old friend and collaborator Albert Einstein to co-sign it, lending his fame to the proposal..." --> "...the proposal" doesn't seem to be defined here. Perhaps this might be smoother, "Szilard drafted a confidential letter to the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, warning of the possibility of a German nuclear weapon project and proposing a US government sponsored project. He convinced his old friend and collaborator Albert Einstein to co-sign it, lending his fame to the proposal." Would something like this work?
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * does "File:Eckhart Hall.jpg" need a freedom of panorama tag?
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "File:HD.5A.013 (10692501095).jpg": the date should probably be when the photo was taken, not when it was uploaded (i.e. c. 1940s? instead of 2013)
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "File:Argonne history Chicago Pile-3.jpg": same as above, the date should probably be when the photo was taken not when it was uploaded;
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * in the References, is there a place of publication for the Szanton, Holl and Waltham works?
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * one of the ext links appears to be dead. Can an archive link be added?
 * ✅ Fixed the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Surprisingly little was known about uranium..." Probably better just as "Little was known about uranium..."
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * in the Health and safety section, I wonder if you should outline the measures that were taken to protect the workers. Currently the coverage seems a little light here...?
 * Added another paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Stagg Field had been demolished in 1957". This seems a little out of place chronologically in the paragraph in which it is currently included.
 * ✅ Moved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * G'day all, this one has been open just short of two months. It still needs a couple more reviewers, though, so if anyone is free, would you mind taking a look and offering an opinion? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : this now looks good to go, but can you confirm that you did an image review? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, PM, yes I did. Apologies, I should have been clearer. I only mentioned the issues I saw, the others seemed fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Anotherclown (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support (with the caveat that this is well beyond my technical knowledge)
 * The article is essentially an administrative history; you have to drill down two levels to get to the real technical stuff. According to the readability tool, it should be intelligible by 12 to 13 year olds. As it was intended to be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All the usual tool checks etc reveal nothing (i.e. no dabs, external links work, no issues with ref consolidation, no duplicate links, Earwig tool is broken). (no action req'd)
 * Is there a suitable image that could be added to the lead? (suggestion only)
 * ✅ Moved the images around to effect this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In the lead: "The Metallurgical Laboratory or "Met Lab" was the Chicago-based part of the Manhattan Project – the Allied effort to develop the atomic bomb." Perhaps mention that this was during World War II for context? (suggestion only)
 * ✅ Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In the lead: "Chicago Pile-1 ceased operation in February 1943..." When did it start operation? This isn't specified in the preceding paragraph.
 * ✅ On 2 December 1942. One of those dates burned into my brain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also it might also pay to Met Labs was established in February 1942 in the lead.
 * ✅ Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is some minor inconsistency in presentation of states, for instance usage such as "state of Washington" and "state of Illinois" vs "State of Illinois".
 * ✅ Illinois is a very special state. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Good to go Comments: Everything has been addressed
 * "In August 1942 its chemical section was the first to produce and weigh a chemically isolated sample of plutonium." - this is a minor nit, but I think the "chemical separated" has to be emphasized here - Pu had already been extracted in a cyclotron before this. A simple fix - "In August 1942, chemical section of the Lab was the first to successfully produce plutonium through chemical separation."
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Compton's Metallurgical (also known as the "Pile" or "X-10") Project" - confused, X-10 formerly referred to a single project administered by the MetLab, but this wording suggests the entire Lab was also known this way? Or...
 * Where did it say that? This is the first mention of X-10. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely... was the Metallurgical Project ever referred to as X-10, or was X-10 one of several projects run by the Metallurgical project? The current wording suggests that X-10 is a synonym, which I don't believe is the case and I can't find any references that make this inference. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Metallurgical Project was codenamed X-10. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just finished skimming all of Book IV. I cannot see any evidence that the Pile Project, X-10 and the Metallurgical Project are synonymous.
 * To start with, the term "X-10" does not appear in any of the documents (barring OCR errors). It appears only on the title cards. No explanation of the term appears in the text, nor is it referred to in the general index.
 * Moreover, the document clearly separates the Pile Project and Met Lab - the later being one of a number of efforts run by the former. The books describe many projects under the Pile Project that were not under the auspices of the Met Project, both before the Project's formation in 1942, and after, including Hanford. It is not clear to me if the Pile Project was some sort of organization within OSRD (and later, Manhattan District) or simply the name that the authors are using to describe the effort as a whole. I suspect the former due to the way the project refers to various contract details and the terminology, but I can't convince myself of that.
 * There is also nothing in this document that directly states that X-10 specifically refers to the Pile Project either, although one sees that inference on the title card (where, it is worth pointing out, the Met Lab does not appear). However, reading other Books one certainly gets the feeling that is at least possible, although it seems there is no clear answer. For instance, the S-25 project was the gas diffusion plant, but then P-9 refers to the entire heavy water provisioning project which involved lots of parts. I would like to see some sort of confirmation that these code terms did indeed apply to specific organizations within the District, but I'm willing to take that on spec in the meantime.
 * I only have Rhodes at hand, but there an in every reference available on Google Books, X-10 always refers specifically to the reactor at ORNL, and nothing else. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Metallurgical Laboratory was part of the Metallurgical (X-10 or Pile) Project.
 * "The elements concerned with overseeing project operations and services were divided among seven major staff components: the Y-12 (electromagnetic), K-25 (gaseous diffusion), X-10 (plutonium), and P-9 (heavy water) unit chiefs; and the Technical, Service and Control, and Administrative Divisions. The four unit chiefs were responsible for the overall supervision of the construction and operations phases of the production processes."


 * In the list of abbreviations, Jones, p. 636 defines X-10 as "Plutonium project" Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Just finished reading the appropriate sections of Jones. Followed with extensive searches on all the involved terms. No part of the document equates Met Project and X-10. On the contrary, all entries state X-10 is referring to the semiworks. Examples:
 * page 208 - "He asked physicist Martin D. Whitaker, who had taken part in the early planning for a laboratory at the site, to select Metallurgical Laboratory staff members to serve as the nucleus of the X-10 operating organization"
 * page 91 - "five major operating units—Madison Square Area, Hanford Engineer Works, Clinton Engineer Works, New York Area, and Special Products—had been established"..."The elements concerned with overseeing project operations and services were divided among seven major staff components: the Y-12 (electromagnetic), K-25 (gaseous diffusion), X-10 (plutonium), and P-9 (heavy water) unit chiefs" ... "The four unit chiefs were responsible for the overall supervision of the construction and operations" (this, more than any other statement, clearly states that X-10 was a construction and operation organization).
 * page 204 - "The semiworks site, consisting of 112 acres and officially named the X-10 area"
 * page 205 - "The X-10 pile and separation plant"
 * page 636 - X-10 entry makes no mention of Metallurgical Project.
 * page 654 - talks about the collaboration between X-10 and the Met Lab
 * page 652 - X-10. Met Lab and Met Project have entirely separate entries in the index
 * page 88 - org chart shows X-10 separate from the U of Chi organization
 * page 90 - chart shows unit chiefs separate from the technical divisions

I simply cannot find a single statement anywhere in Jones that says the Met Proj was ever referred to as X-10. The statements on page 91 seem to clearly suggest that the "X-10 organization" (for lack of a better term) was the overseeing body within the Manhattan District itself that was responsible for the semiworks. Open to more references, of course. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * X-10 was the plutonium project. None of the above contradicts this. The Manhattan District histories are stamped Pile Project (X-10). The Pile Project, known as the X-10 Project (Book IV, Volume 1, p. 1.1) Note that Book IV, Volume 5 - Construction and Volume 6 Operation are all about Hanford! Whereas Compton only ever refers to the Metallurgical Project, and never mentions the X-10 codename. In Jones' index, the Clinton Labs, Hanford, Met Lab etc are all under filed under Pile (X-10) process. Pages 202-204 make it clear that the Metallurgical Project and the Pile (X-10) Project are the same. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "X-10 was the plutonium project" - but that's not what the article claims. The article claims "Compton's Metallurgical (also known as the "Pile" or "X-10") Project". I see nothing to support this.
 * "Metallurgical Project, and never mentions the X-10 codename" - exactly my point.
 * "Pages 202-204 make it clear" - they do nothing of the sort. Starting with the very first paragraph on 202 the language continually and universally separates several groups involved in the plutonium effort. Among these are several references to liaisons between DuPont and the MetProj, and references to the overarching organizational group that ended on Grove's desk. This culminates on the bottom of page 204 with the statement "Consistent with the plan to employ the Metallurgical Project essentially as a Du Pont research and development division, the plutonium project leaders incorporated into the Metallurgical Project-Du Pont work..." To me, this statement very clearly separates the plutonium project leadership, the MetProject, and DuPont, which is reinforced by the org charts I noted above.
 * "In Jones' index, the Clinton Labs, Hanford, Met Lab etc are all under filed under Pile (X-10) process" - the entry on page 654 refers to "DuPont-MetLab collaboration". It also lists "Army-DuPont administration". It does not list the Met Lab as the Pile (X-10) process", and the MetLab has its own entry for the MetLab on page 634. On that page we can also find the entry for the Metproj, again listing "DuPont collaboration" and their participation in the "plutonium program". None of this suggests the MetLab was referred to as X-10, quite to the contrary, the separate entries say they were not the same organization and the continual references to the collaboration between the groups seems clear enough to me.
 * This remains un-V. We're reading the same source, and I see it saying the opposite of what you're saying. What we still lack is any direct evidence one way or the other. Is it really too much to ask for that one parenthetical section to be removed while we await V? Will the article fall apart without it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed! I trust this will resolve the issue. But I never said that that MetLab was the same as X-10. The MetLab was part of the X-10 Project. I still think you are confusing the Metallurgical Laboratory (headed by Doan/Allison/Sterans/Daniels) with the Metallurgical Project (headed by Compton). Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "Over 5,000 people..." vs. "From a peak of 2,008 staff". This may illuminate the point above - is the "or" in the parens meaning "they worked on this project OR that project"? If so, this could easily be clarified... "Over 2,000 people worked at the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, while another 3,000 worked on projects run by the Lab at other locations like Oak Ridge and Argonne."
 * But it says: "Over 5,000 people in 70 research groups participated in Compton's Metallurgical (also known as the "Pile" or "X-10") Project, of whom some 2,000 worked in the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago". The point being made is that the Metallurgical Laboratory was part of the larger Metallurgical Project. Your wording would imply the opposite. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, so. swap "Lab" for "Project" and we get... "Over 2,000 people worked at the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, while the Metallurgical Project as a whole also employed another 3,000 employees at other locations like Oak Ridge and Argonne." Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That's it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Maury Markowitz (talk)
 * I added some nbsp's in various units.

Just for the record
Just to put a nail in the issue I raised above, I contacted the Department of Energy's history department for some clarity on the whole naming issue. This led to a surprisingly detailed answer from the DOE Chief Historian, Dr. Eric W. Boyle. He tracked down multiple sources and also talked to the other historians about this. His letter basically concluded that the various code names in Jones that seem to be referring to projects were referring to single sites. That is, X-10 was used to refer to the site and the reactor and nothing else, whereas Jones seems to suggest it was a larger organizational level. But more broadly, the only names that were really used at all were X, Y and W, and that the list of names in Jones appear in few or no other sources, none of which suggest they are anything but single projects. Most directly, he noted "The same chart lists units in Boston and California under the heading of the Y-12 Chief, but nobody would suggest that Y-12 was used to refer to sites in these locations outside of Oak Ridge." Not sure how to make this available other than to repeat the logic en-masse, but the great thing is that he also provided a nice set of refs. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:26, 3 July 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.