Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Trinity (nuclear test)


 * 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 MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Trinity (nuclear test)

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I sort of promised that it would be TFA-ready by 16 July 2015. Having gone through GA, I now present it here. The article is about the first ever nuclear weapons test. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Nice article. I'm concerned about the indirect verb structures, such as "A construction firm from Lubbock, Texas, was contracted to build the barracks, officers' quarters, ... "  why would we say "was contracted to build..." when "built" is quite clear.  If they had a contract and didn't built it, okay, then I'd see the point, but it looks like they did.  There are lot of places like this.  Do you want me to fix them?  auntieruth (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do.  Started today.  Should finish by Wednesday or Thursday!  :)  Gotta say I love this article.  You've clearly explained a lot of things I didn't understand about the project.  auntieruth (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have the time, drop past FAC and leave some comments on Featured article candidates/Smyth Report/archive1. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've not found a location for Pope, New Mexico. I've checked maps and maps of ghost towns. auntieruth (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a town, just a railroad siding. Latitude: 33.603124  Longitude: -106.9739174. See  Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I've done some tweaking, tried not to go over ground that Dank covered.  auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments: I made an effort to copy edit the article, but found it a little heavy going, so I may have missed a few things, sorry. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * there is one citation needed tag in the 100-ton test section that should be dealt with
 * ✅ Removed the tag. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this sentence is saying: "Maps of the ground dose rate pattern from the device's fallout at +1 hour, and +12 hours."
 * ✅ Not in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * watch for overlink, the duplicate link checker reports a few possibilities: Pit (nuclear weapon); critical mass; explosive lens; Edward Teller; trinitite; Bombing of Hiroshima.
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * At the time of the test, what was the relationship of White Sands Proving Ground and Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range? Did the former even exist?
 * The White Sands Proving Ground was established by the Secretary of War on 20 February 1945. Construction of a site to test V-2 missiles there commenced on 25 June, and the first rocket launches were in July.
 * Suggest that "part" replace "result" in the first sentence of the lede.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of detail in the lede that I'd recommend be saved for the main body. Like structures present and # of people present, the non-use of Jumbo, and the list of notable observers.
 * The lead is not big for an article of this size. Since there is a whole section on Jumbo, it should be mentioned in the lead.
 * Convert 108 tons on first use.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the greater the content of the isotope it's not immediately clear that you're referring to Pu-240 here.
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * area Southwest of Cuba decapitalize southwest
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I second auntieruth55's comments about passive voice.
 * Convert the original and final weights of Jumbo as well as the weights of TNT equivalents. Not really sure that the gigajoule conversions provided are actually helpful for ordinary readers.
 * They are there if they want them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What was a Y-1561 device? The formal nomenclature for the Fat Man-style bomb assembly?
 * Yes. The early Y-1222 model Fat Man was used for the initial ballistic testing. This was superseded by the Y-1291 design in December 1944. This redesign work was substantial, and only the Y-1222 tail design was retained. Later versions included the Y-1560, which had 72 detonators; the Y-1561, which had 32; and the Y-1562, which had 132. There was also the Y-1563 and Y-1564, which were practice bombs with no detonators at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Double-check that you're using the adjectival format for some of your conversions. I fixed one, but there might well be others.
 * ✅. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The section about the test detonation conducted by Creutz needs to be clarified as it's unclear why it indicated failure for the actual test if it was successful. It couldn't to have been a scale issue if it used full-sized cores.
 * ✅ No. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This caption The explosives of the Gadget are raised up to the top of the tower for the final assembly appears to contradict your statement that the Gadget was assembled on the ground and then hoisted up into the tower where it was then armed.
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Need a hyphen between Simon and led Steve Simon led National Cancer Institute
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * a few duplicate links, Kistiakowsky, Bethe and Rabi (the two latter mentions need to be shaved of first name/initials)
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * hot spot is a link to a dab page
 * ✅ Removed link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll run through the prose and check the images later
 * File:Trinity Test - Oppenheimer and Groves at Ground Zero 001.jpg doesn't have author info, but I think the assumption that only a DOE employee could have taken it is a reasonable one.
 * The image was taken at a press conference in September 1945. But the Los Alamos National Laboratory claims it as their photograph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the rest of the images seem ok to me, might be worth having a look given there are so many.
 * Lead
 * The test site, named the White Sands Proving Ground, is clunky. Suggest The White Sand Proving Ground, where the test was conducted,
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * suggest at on the Alamogordo Bombing...
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Background
 * suggest led to a fears
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * suggest plutonium production was performed conducted not sure about "performing" production, but maybe that's just me...
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * something that is missing here, IMO, is a sense of how much plutonium and U-235 was required, in contrast to the "minute" amounts produced in the cyclotrons
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Decision
 * The mention of a billion dollars of plutonium underlines the importance of quantifying the production of the key substances
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Organization
 * There are a few scientists here that should perhaps be redlinked? Or are they otherwise not notable?
 * I don't think they are notable enough. I'll keep an eye on them though. I did add a couple more articles on scientists. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Test site
 * references to Bush should be Lieutenant Bush, as a reader might think it was Vannevar
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * fn are not in chronological order, [28][24]
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * suggest and provided organized games
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jumbo
 * is there any information about how thick the walls of Jumbo were?
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * link Victor Weisskopf
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * CM-10 group needs some explanation or a link, if it exists
 * 100-ton test
 * A 20-foot (6.1 m)-high I think the hyphen before "high" could be removed with no detriment, per later measurements in the same section
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * link ground zero at first mention
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * drop Bernard from Waldman (already linked)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Gadget
 * With "gadget" being the laboratory euphemism for a bomb seems to hang, needs to be linked to the preceding sentence somehow
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hans Bethe should be just Bethe
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * suggest and was able to reported
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * nuclear fallout and fallout (in the test site section) are both linked, fallout is a redirect
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fallout
 * Maps of the ground dose rate pattern from the device's fallout at +1 hour, and +12 hours. doesn't appear to have proper sentence construction. Reads more like a caption/sentence fragment. Needs rewording.
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than ""Little Boy" I suggest you use "the Hiroshima bomb", for clarity.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's me done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of some additional images and text, I feel I must jump in to make some additional comments:
 * blast re-enforcing effect I have never seen this construction before. Having read the section at the link, I assume it is meant to be blast reinforcing effect?
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The additional photograph of the fireball (File:Trinity explosion (color).jpg) is redundant (at least for the non-technically qualified reader).
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Sherman tank pic licensing looks ok
 * the "Standard bomb's energy..." table is messy, suggest it is enclosed in a frame
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * One of the external links reports as a redirect:
 * Trinity A bomb test photos on The UK National Archives' website. (info) [nationalarchives.gov.uk]
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
 * Captions look fine (no action req'd)
 * A couple of duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
 * Little Boy
 * ground zero
 * ✅ Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
 * "Practical development began in earnest in June 1942, when these efforts were transferred to the authority of the U.S. Army and became the Manhattan Project." Practical development by whom? I assume the Allies but this might need to be more clear (admittedly this is fairly closely implied as Britain and the United States from the previous paragraph and obviously mentioned US Army, but think being explicit to make it clear that it wasn't just the US that make efforts in this area wouldn't be a bad thing).
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This doesn't quite work for my ear; however, my technical knowledge is limited to high school science and is obviously woefully limited so it might be right: "...reducing the number of generations of chain reactions...". Would this work better: "...reducing the number of chain reactions generated..."?
 * When we have a chain reaction, a nucleus fissions and emits two neutrons. That's the first generation. Those neutrons join nuclei and cause them to fission. That's the second generation. But only the last couple of generations have any real impact on the explosion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "...were willing to give it a try..." seems a little informal, perhaps: "...were willing to attempt its manufacture..." or something similar.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a typo here: "Bethe worked through the night to assess the results, and was reported...", specifically should it be: "...Bethe worked through the night to assess the results, and reported..."
 * ✅ Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "crate" correct here: "Sherman tanks made their way to the crate...", or should it be "crater"?
 * ✅ Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OCLCs and ISSNs might be available through Worldcat.org for the works that are missing these (where appropriate) in the ref list.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Such things aside, to me this is an impressive article about a key topic, completed to a high standard. Quite an achievement.
 * Thank you! I sort of promised that I would have it in shape to run as TFA on 16 July 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "rapidly reducing the necessary critical mass of material. This reduced the size of a critical mass": Something's off there.
 * ✅ Removed the unnecessary phrase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I got down to The Gadget. Everything looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2014 (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. 