Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Hurricane


 * 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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Operation Hurricane

 * Nominator(s): 

Previous review: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Hurricane/archive1

We terminated this a week ago pending official confirmation that crown copyright expires worldwide after 50 years. I now have official confirmation.

So we can proceed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this in detail at GAN and have looked at the improvements made since. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Llammakey
 * Clement Attlee should be linked at first mention in text along with giving his full name, in the third paragraph of Background. Also what was Attlee's role at the 9 November meeting? Was he the Prime Minister at that point? It says he is in the following paragraph, but that's kinda confusing to have his full introduction a paragraph later.
 * Moved the introduction up a paragraph. Attlee was "a modest man, with a great deal to be very modest about". Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's been an attempt to re-habilitate Attlee's repution, but he's the kind of guy who inspires apathy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside from that, great article Llammakey (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support after changes Llammakey (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments This article is in good shape - I have only the following comments: Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "At the time Britain was still Australia's major trading partner, although it would be overtaken by Japan and the United States by the 1960s. The two countries still had strong cultural ties, and Menzies was strongly pro-British. Australian and British troops were fighting the communists together in the Korean War and the Malayan Emergency" - it would be worth also noting here that Australian foreign and military policies and plans of this era continued to be closely integrated with those of the British (eg, the main tasks for the Army were seen as reinforcing the British in either Egypt or South East Asia in the event of a major war, and the Navy had similar plans).
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Did Australia's (somewhat vague) consideration of a nuclear weapons program also influence the decision to agree to host this test
 * ✅ Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "The LSTs carried twelve and five LCMs and twelve LCAs" - the figures on the LCMs are a bit unclear (did some of the ships carry 12 and others 5?)
 * ✅ No, they carried five LCMs and twelve LCAs between them. Normally you put two LCMs on the top of an LST with two LCAs inside each. Then you load the ballast tanks on one side of the LST and the LCM slides into the water. The LCAs are then floated out. So there should have been 6 and 12; one LCM must have been lost somehow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "instead of traversing the Suez Canal" - can you say why the Canal wasn't used?
 * ✅ I thought I had, but it was in the High Explosive Research article. Added. There's a whole article on the subject, which is linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Did the atomic bomb which was tested perform as expected?
 * ✅ Yes it did. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Was there ever an assessment of the health effects of the test on the involved personnel?
 * ✅ Several. None were conclusive. Added a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Similarly, was a clean-up to remove radioactive material ever undertaken? (as was the case on the mainland test sites) Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. Added a bit about the Gorgon gas project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What would be really cool would be to send a wiki-photograher out to the Monte Bello Islands. I wonder if is available? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- I've checked changes since the last nom, and tweaked only a little, so ready to support but I think it'd be a good idea for to give the images the once-over again first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * PD-1923 generally shouldn't be used for post-1923 photos - if they were published pre-1978 the URAA tag would work better. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed the PD-1923 tags. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Have URAA tags been substituted per Nikki's recommendation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No. URAA is for items that have expired before 1 January 1996 (ie were created before 1 January 1946). Rather, these are government images created before 1 January 1967, which are in the public domain because copyright has expired, and the Australian government asserts that its copyright expires world-wide. But there is no template for this on Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I have only one comment for the entire article: "arrived the day before on a Sunderland flying boat" - this is somewhat redundant given a passage only a little bit above. Perhaps "arrived the day before on a Sunderland". That's it, I read the whole thing straight through and think it's fantastic (and at places both funny and illiminating - the charts are from the Beagle!?). Feel free to ping me when this goes to FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. High Explosive Research is currently at FAC, and this article will follow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2017 (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.