Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Mosaic

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Operation Mosaic
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Next in the British nuclear tests series after Operation Totem. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Sources look reliable, but there are some consistency issues. Some journals and PDFs are listed under references, while others are cited as footnotes without giving page numbers (which harms WP:V). Some books have both ISBN and OCLC, while others have just ISBN (I recommend dropping OCLC as it is duplicative, but either way, be consistent.) You also have overcited the statement, "Menzies cabled his approval of the tests on 20 June 1955". Suggest breaking up those refs by moving closer to the content they support or dropping the weakest/ least reliable one. buidhe 04:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Source review


 * All journals are listed in the references.
 * Then what is "RAAF Involvement in Nuclear Testing" (PDF). Pathfinder. No. 232. October 2014. Retrieved 9 August 2018. Looks like a journal to me.
 * It's a fortnightly bulletin put out by the Airpower Development Centre. It's not a journal, but the bulletins are collected into one, so cited that instead.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Australia Station Intelligence Summary" (PDF). Royal Australian Navy. June 1956. Retrieved 7 August 2018. May be a report, but there still needs to be page number to comply with WP:V.
 * It is a report, so added the page number.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All the book and journal citations have page numbers.
 * See above.
 * I hope I have addressed your concerns.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All the books in the reference with an ISBN have an OCLC, but one older book has no ISBN. The two do not duplicate each other.
 * I've split the reference on Menzies' acceptance.
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  04:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I reviewed this at GAN 18 months ago and not much has changed, so I only have a few comments: That's all I could find. Nice work as always. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * suggest "After the war ended, the British government expected"
 * ✅ Re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The resulting nuclear fusion reactions produce d neutrons"
 * ✅ Done.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * move the link to Royal Navy to first mention
 * ✅ Linked/unlinked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * suggest "RAAF Base Pearce near Perth, and Onslow in the Pilbara region"
 * ✅ Added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * suggest "RAAF Base Darwin"
 * ✅ Done.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is tension between "Two tests were therefore added to the schedule: one with a lead tamper to investigate the effect of lithium deuteride, and one with a natural uranium tamper to investigate its effect." in the Purpose and site selection section, and "Given the result of G1, plans were changed for G2. It had been intended to use a lead tamper for G2, but given the low yield of G1, a natural uranium tamper was substituted"
 * ✅ Corrected.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Onlow→Onslow
 * ✅ well spotted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the AWTSC set a limit of 80 kT? But earlier it says "so the promised upper limit was about 60 kilotonnes of TNT"
 * ✅ There isn't really a contradiction here, but added that one of 80 kt was subsequently agreed to. There was a constant tension between the politicians' wanting to nail limits down and the scientists who couldn't really be sure because they were dealing with things they didn't fully understand.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It now says "Later one if 80 ktTNT limit would be agreed to." Later on an"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright
Lead: Preparations:
 * At the time of the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia in 1984–1985 there emerged a claim that the second test was of a significantly higher yield than suggested by available figures: 98 kilotonnes of TNT (410 TJ) as compared to 60 kilotonnes of TNT (250 TJ); but this claim remains unsubstantiated.
 * Consider replacing the second “in” that follows Australia with "during" - it's defined as throughout the course or duration of a period of time.
 * "At the time of the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia in 1984–1985" - this has the characteristics of an introductory phrase or clause, but without punctuation. A comma after 1985 would help breakup an otherwise 35-word stretch before a punctuated pause.
 * ✅ Re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The two tests would provide important information that would materially advance progress towards building a British hydrogen bomb.[11][12]
 * Consider replacing the second would with could. Could indicates the possibility of something.
 * ✅ Re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There area was too isolated, with the nearest road over 100 miles (160 km) away, and only tracked vehicles or those with special tyres could traverse the intervening sand dunes.
 * Tyres?
 * Special tyres.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

G1:
 * ... four RAF Hastings aircraft flew between the UK and Australia, and two Whirlwind helicopters provided a taxi service
 * taxi service seems specific, wouldn’t it be "the” rather than a?
 * Better as it is.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The fissile material was delivered by a RAF Hastings to Onslow, from whence it was collected by HMS Alert on 11 May and delivered to the Monte Bello Islands the following day.
 * This sentence seems to have three independent clauses, in which case the comma after Onslow should be replaced with a semicolon and a comma added after 11 May.
 * ✅ Comma added after "11 May".  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The following day, Martell set 16 May as the day for the test.
 * ✅ Changed as suggested.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The second day should be replaced with date - a date is a particular day.


 * The main danger to the ships' crews was considered to be from radioactive seaweed, so the crews were prohibited from catching or eating fish, and ships' evaporators were not run.
 * Replace the comma after seaweed with a semicolon to join the independent clauses.
 * "so" acts as a conjustion here.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Add the definite article before the last mention of ships’.
 * ✅ Added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

G2:
 * There then followed a period of waiting for suitable weather conditions.
 * "There then"?
 * ✅ Delerted "there".  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Finished - Pendright (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Supporting - Pendright (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
Down to G1. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Anything more? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A 15 July deadline was set as the terminal date Is an awkward sentence if a compound adjective is a date in my eyes.
 * ✅ Re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The British government was anxious that Grapple should take place before a proposed moratorium --> "The British Government was anxious that Grapple should take place before a proposed moratorium" Per MOS:INSTITUTIONS.
 * MOS:INSTITUTIONS says the opposite: that it should not be capitalised.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * After a re-read, I give you a point, but after a quick research I found out these, , , , even the Australia Government's website and if we count this as reliable than I think countries' governments should be capitalised, even if this policy applied? It could be a WP:ENGVAR issue because I also see it a lot in British but not in American. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Changed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * suggested by available figures: 98 kilotonnes of TNT (410 TJ) Link TNT and TJ.
 * ✅ linked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The British government expected that the United States --> "The British Government expected that the United States"
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the British government restarted its own development Same as above.
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * cooperation vs co-operation
 * ✅ WP:ENGVAR issue.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The British government therefore resolved --> "The British Government therefore resolved"
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The British government was most anxious Same as above.
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of "kilotonnes"; per MOS:UNITNAMES we shouldn't mention long units again after their first mentions.
 * Doesn't have one. (Template:Convert)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Later a 80 kilotonnes of TNT (330 TJ) limit Compound adjective here (and a typo in the article).
 * ✅ Adjusted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In June 1955, the Admiralty Remove 1955 here; it's already mentioned a sentence before.
 * ✅ deleted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * chaired by Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Morgan The Britons use a hyphen in their lieutenant general.
 * The article is written in Australian English, and the Brits no longer uses the hyphen.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Australian government created a Monte Bello --> "The Australian Government created a Monte Bello"
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * created by the Australian government to oversee Same as above.
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A pair of RAN 120ft Motor Lighters, MWL251 Convert?
 * ✅ Trticky, because that is the name of the article. Converted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * water and refrigeration respectively.[32][30][33] Re-order the refs here.
 * ✅ re-ordered.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is more, give me a sec.


 * A 15 July deadline was set as the terminal Is an awkward sentence if a compound adjective is a date in my eyes.
 * ✅ Re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * G2 was going to be smaller than G1.[50][47][51] Re-order the refs.
 * ✅ Re-ordered.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To avoid embarrassing the minister, the safety Which minister?
 * ✅ Beale. Changed to "him"  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An annual exposure of 150 millisieverts (15 rem) Link the units here.
 * ✅ Linked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * would receive a dose of 580 microsieverts (0.058 rem) Same as above.
 * I think linking the units once is enough.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seamen in Fremantle demanded that the SS Koolinda, a cattle transport What was she?
 * A cattle transport.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Link Hermite Island?
 * It is very small, uninhabited, and just one of 180 named islands in the Montebello Islands archipelago. I don't think an article will ever be created about it.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the "Summary" section kt should be kilotonnes?
 * ✅ Corrected.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Link TJ in the infobox.
 * ✅ Linked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of just adding a name in an image without clarification; maybe add their type of ships to clarify it again?
 * ould allow a 50 kilotonnes of TNT (210 TJ) Compound adjective here.
 * ✅ Done.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There area was too isolated Odd sentence; should it be "their"?
 * ✅ Typo. Changed to "The".  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * AWTSC would be present on board the Task Force 308 flagship Not "onboard"?
 * "Onboard" is used before a noun it modifies (eg onboard navigation equipment); otherwise you use "on board" (eg. on board the Task Force 308 flagship)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass
All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)