Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Hurricane/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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Operation Hurricane

 * Nominator(s): 

The next article in the British nuclear series, something of a spin-off from High Explosive Research, but interesting in its own right I think. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Having just passed to GA there's not a lot to criticize. Nothing needs DAB'ing, all ALTs on images look good, images otherwise appear viable, Earwig shows copyvio unlikely, everything is referenced and references are high-quality, no redirects or dead links. Some minor critique - At five paragraphs I think the lede is technically out of compliance with WP:LEDE, however, the paragraphs are short so I think it meets the spirit of law. Under "Outcome" the sentence that begins Writing in 1951 ... needs, I believe, to move the period outside quotes as per MOS:LQ. DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reorganised the lead into four paragraphs. Per MOS:LQ: Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material. It is, so I have. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - looks good to me in that case! DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This sentences is confusing.
 *  Comments Support re prose and sources/ auntieruth
 * The study noted that what was required was an isolated site with no human habitation 100 miles (160 km) downwind, from which fallout would be blown out to sea but away from shipping lanes. It had to be large enough to accommodate several detonations over a period of years, and ready by mid-1952.
 * The study noted four site requirements: no human habitation within 100 miles (160 km) downwind; from which fallout would be blown out to sea and away from shipping lanes; large enough to accommodate several detonations over a period of years; and ready by mid-1952.
 * ✅ It's like the Spanish Inquisition. Re-cast it in point form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * caption of radio tower photo: should be was erected, not is erected.
 * ✅ I'm used to picture captions in the present.Changed to past tense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * souvenir relics ??? you mean collect relics as souvenir?  Use of souvenir as a verb is very informal.  :(  Maybe I'm a snob.
 * ✅ More likely me thinking in French instead of English je pense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

auntieruth (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: why is the Compagna listing so heavily? auntieruth (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an optical illusion caused by the anti-U-boat camouflage paint. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments -- great to see this old article, which I've linked to more than once in my Australian military bios, redeveloped to this standard... Well done in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Copyedited, so pls let me know any concerns there; outstanding (minor) points:
 * "There was political advantage in demonstrating that the United Kingdom was not a satellite state of the United States." -- I feel you've effectively said the same thing the para before with "political advantages to demonstrating that Britain could develop and test nuclear weapons without American assistance" so do we need both?
 * ✅ Removed, merged paragraph with the previous one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "some men were transferred from Campania by helicopter" -- not particularly vital but since we mention types and operators of other aircraft do we know what sort of chopper and who operated it?
 * ✅ Campania carried three Westland WS-51 Dragonfly helicopters. Added. I don't know what NAS they belonged to. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Two helicopters flew in to gather a sample of contaminated seawater from the lagoon" -- ditto.
 * Although I only know the bones of this story, the article seems comprehensive to me but not overly detailed, and structure is straightforward and logical.
 * I'll try to do a source review before I finish up.
 * Prefer to see do the image review as we're talking post-war Australian pictures, so PD-1996 wouldn't apply to them.

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up the Monte Bello map (and is it Monte Bello or Montebello?)
 * Yeah, good point about the name, Nikki, I've seen both used in sources but the article seems to use Monte Bello elsewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All the old sources used in the article use Monte Bello, but the recent stuff generally uses Montebello. The two seem to be used interchangeably. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Several 1940s/1950s images include the PD-1923 tag or don't have any US tag (File:Op_hurricane.jpg) - some of these should use PD-1996, others it's unclear what their status would be in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the images are using the PD-1923 tag; they are just using the US-PD tag. All Australian images from before 1 January 1955 are in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In Australia, yes. On what basis are they PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The images are owned by the government, and the government has released them into the public domain world-wide. Per the 2004 Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be dense, but I'm not seeing that provision in the agreement - do you know which specific section it's in? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What I got said: The effect of the application of Article 18 of the Berne Convention, referenced in Article 17.4.5, is that there is no obligation on Australia to enact retrospective protection of copyright material that has already fallen into the public domain. The magical date therefore became 1 January 1955. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In Australia. But unless there's a similar provision on the US side, they generally would have restored copyrights, and that provision wouldn't seem to affect that. (Also, something like OperationHurricane.png would seem not to have been government-owned). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The British and Australian governments assert that the expiry of crown copyright applies worldwide. US law apparently does permit material to be put into the public domain. (Whereas in Australia, only the government is allowed to do that.) I have removed the newspaper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've seen the British assertion but not the Australian - do you have a link? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked the Attorney General for one. Last time we got bogged down in the US government's intention to abolish the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've sent off another ministerial request to Senator Brandis. This could take a while, so I would like to withdraw this nomination, and resubmit when the required paperwork is in hand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you want to close the A-class review? That seems a little extreme if it's just an image licencing problem but it's certainly your prerogative. Let me know what you want to do. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  14:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the images will block promotion. I cannot remedy the problem quickly, except by removing the images from the article, but I can always re-submit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comment: looks excellent to me. The only suggestion I have is to convert the Hill and Maryan & Bush citations to sfn refs like the others. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Co-ord comment: Has there been any resolution on the image question above? If not I propose closing this for now (it can always be re-nominated later once its sorted per Hawkeye's comments above). Anotherclown (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been no resoltion. I suggest closing for now. I can re-nominate it later. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hawkeye7, will do. Anotherclown (talk) 04:22, 13 June 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.