Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/United States v. The Progressive/archive1


 * Resolved comments from Cryptic C62


 * I see a lot of informal and otherwise unusual language being used throughout the article:
 * "a tight blanket of security"
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "the U.S. was shocked to discover"
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Although Teller had the green light"
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "a 50–50 chance of success"
 * This comes directly from Ulam's report. Kept. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "If there was no secret before, there was one now."
 * Deleted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the Background section, and in particular the Hydrogen Bomb section, presents far more material than is necessary to understand this topic.
 * I have pruned this section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Rarely in the history of technology", wrote Howard Morland, "has such a seemingly daunting problem turned out to have such a nifty solution." Interesting, but relevant?
 * Yes. It goes to the heart of the issue. Was this a true secret, or something that could easily be guessed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (unrelated) "Although the case was filed in the Western District of Wisconsin, the only judge there recused himself as a friend of the magazine. The case was therefore brought before Judge Robert W. Warren, a judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin." I don't think that this level of detail is necessary for the lead, as this snippet doesn't really enhance the reader's overall understanding of the topic.
 * This has been reworded. The location of the court confused a number of sources (and article editors) because the case is listed as "Western District" but it was conducted in the Eastern. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "This came as a profound shock." To whom?
 * The Congressmen debating the bill. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "This was topical." I would imagine that anything published in a monthly magazine would be topical, no?
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "the House Armed Services Committee held hearings into the proposed Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty." I may be wrong here, but I think "hearings regarding", "hearings on", or "investigations into" make a lot more sense than "hearings into".
 * R-worded: into -> on Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "and even some environmental concerns." What is the purpose of "even" in this sentence? Why would this be surprising? I suggest swapping "even some" out for "various".
 * Changed to "associated environmental concerns" Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "although it is possible that some classified information or ideas were accidentally or deliberately leaked to him." Cite?
 * At the end of the paragraph. Copied here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "His scientific background consisted of five undergraduate courses in physics and chemistry taken as part of his Bachelor of Arts degree in economics at Emory University." If the purpose of this sentence is to establish that Morland had essentially zero scientific training, it might be a good idea to say so explicitly: "His scientific background was minimal: he had taken five undergraduate courses in physics and chemistry taken as part of his Bachelor of Arts degree in economics at Emory University."
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Morland identified the features of the Teller-Ulam design as staging, with a primary and secondary compression around a fissile "sparkplug", and radiation pressure from soft X-rays." Lots of new technical terms being introduced in this sentence.
 * "Teller-Ulam design" and X-Rays have already been mentioned. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph of Morland's article would benefit from the inclusion of a couple of dates or months.
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Rathjens phoned The Progressive and urged that the article not be published. When that did not work, he sent the draft to the DOE." The most logical interpretation of "when that did not work" is that The Progressive published the article. But this contradicts my (mis)understanding that the article wasn't published until after the DOE dropped the case. Perhaps something like "When The Progressive dismissed his suggestion..." would work better?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "If there was no secret, then there was no reason for security."
 * "The scientists, in particular, chafed under the wartime controls"
 * I don't see a problem with these two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first, read the sentence out loud and ask yourself "Is this the best way to start a section in an encyclopedia article?" Note that in this case, "encyclopedia article" and "episode of 24" are not interchangeable. Regarding the second, I had mistakenly believed that "to chafe" was being used figuratively, but it turns out that one of the accepted definitions is "to feel irritation, discontent, or impatience," which fits the bill here. Struck.
 * How would you feel about renaming Morland's article to Morland's research?
 * No, the case is about his article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but the section isn't. The section is about the work that Morland did to prepare the article. There is very little in this section about the contents of the article itself, which is why I found the title somewhat misleading. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Renamed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "DOE officials ... attempted to dissuade The Progressive from publishing the article ... When that did not work," Same problem as the Rathjens comment above.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "the Atomic Energy Act specifically allowed for injunctive relief" What's that?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "This was probably unnecessary, for the media were supportive of the government's case." Why? I'm sure there is a reason, but this seems counterintuitive to me.
 * "Daniel Ellsberg ... told Morland that the believed that nuclear weapons design" Typos. Should probably say "Daniel Ellsberg ... told Morland that he believed that nuclear weapon designs" [changes bolded]
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "an evidentially hearing at which the opposing teams of experts could cross examined." More typos. Unless I'm mistaken, this should say "an evidentiary hearing at which the opposing teams of experts could be cross examined." [changed bolded]
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The following two sentences seem contradictory:
 * "The government's lawyers argued ... that there was sensitive information in the article ... which, if published, would harm arms control efforts."
 * "the court was concerned about the prospect of publication causing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and potentially a global nuclear holocaust, although the government did not advance such a claim."
 * The second claim (nuclear holocaust) may not have been advanced by the government, but the first claim (proliferation of weapons) was, if the first sentence is to be believed.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Section title The government drops the case: Surely there must be a more concise way of naming this section, no? "Case dropped", "Case dismissed", or "Dismissal" would all be better, I think.
 * Renamed the section "Case dropped" as it was not dismissed. Hawkeye7
 * "Meanwhile, a group of scientists," There are a few places in the article where the opening of a section only makes sense if the viewer has been reading the entire article up to that point. Perhaps some editors would disagree with me, but I firmly believe that this is a bad practice for an encyclopedia article. This example is the most problematic: a reader who jumps to the The government drops the case section will have literally no idea what time frame "Meanwhile" refers to.
 * Cryptic, I don't know how far you're taking this. For instance, are you saying that WP articles should never say "at the same time" or "then" or "also", on the theory that the reader may not have read the previous paragraph? If they haven't, shouldn't they be clued that they may need to, to understand the context? - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. I meant "in the first sentence of a paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am not opposed to such language in general, but I believe it is problematic for the very beginning of a section. Two arguments for your consideration:
 * Argument A: Section headings should break up the article either chronologically or by subtopic. If The government drops the case is meant to be the next chronological chunk, why would it contain information about events that happened at the same time as events in the previous chronological chunk? Or, if The government drops the case is meant to be a subtopic, why can't "meanwhile" be replaced by a date range or relative phrase (such as "prior to the start of the trial") such that the reader interested in this subtopic is given the context needed without having to backtrack?
 * Argument 2: In general, when a paragraph starts with "meanwhile", it's fairly clear that the word refers to the previous paragraph. When a section starts with "meanwhile", it could conceivably refer to three different timeframes: the previous paragraph, the previous subsection, or the entire top-level section up to that point. The first case suggests that the location of the section break is arbitrary; the second and third cases can be readily differentiated by replacing "meanwhile" with the appropriate date range or relative phrase.
 * Any way you look at it, "meanwhile" at the beginning of a section is not the best phrasing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, although there are always trivial cases where the preceding action all takes place at roughly the same time, so that "meanwhile" wouldn't be vague. But I agree that it will often be vague at the beginning of a subsection. Hawkeye, I can't tell when the scientists wrote to John Glenn. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have replaced "meanwhile" with the exact date of the letter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "They were concerned about information being leaked, in particular by the assertion..." How can information be leaked by an assertion? I'm guessing that's not how the phrasing is supposed to be interpreted, but that's how it comes across.
 * Re-worded to make this clearer: They were concerned about information being leaked, in particular by the government's tacit acknowledgement that Morland's bomb design was substantially correct, something that could not otherwise have been deduced from unclassified information. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Morland's article was duly published" The inclusion of "duly" hints at a pro-Morland POV here. I suggest dropping it.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The case remains a celebrated one, but one which, from a legal standpoint, "proved to be a victory for no one" due to the indecisive nature of its conclusion." Firstly, if it was a victory for no one, who celebrates it and why? Second, there's no reason why this should exist as a one-sentence paragraph.
 * Expanded it a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)