Top level article on the Manhattan Project. Attempts to cover the project as a single coherent article, while at the same time acting as a gateway to the hundreds of sub articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: The nominator has another article at FAC at this time. A delegate granted special permission for this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
restarted Jul 27 previous I am copying over the reiterated supports from the last 24 hours, after notice was given by another reviewer that much had changed. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye, can you please identify the new sources that have been added so that they can be checked quickly? also, have there been any new images added since the check was done? Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Detailed review was going on here. My support still holds, of course. Nageh (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still support. I've been engaged with the thing for quite a while and kept up with the changes. My support remains. Carcaroth, you came in late and some of the changes have been related to your suggestions. Would think you could pretty easily see what's been added. If you want to hold out over parks and a FL, fine. But on just assessing the article, this should not be that hard for you given how insightful your initial review was and how you've assessed the changes.
I would have no problem with this if it were a client report in the work world or an academic review. And I'm easily capable of watching and endorsing evolution, and pretty used to it happening. I'm actually very cheered that there has been major wrangling and work on the content, rather than some of the MOS-prose only reviews I see on other articles. (I also like that we pushed the Canoe River thing on substance as well.) Manhattan Project is an outstanding piece of work, full of juicy goodness, and Wiki should be proud and star it.TCO (reviews needed) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I guess I didn't say that explicitly before). Hawkeye has done a nice job with an inherently difficult article, both before the nomination and during this FAC process. However, my support doesn't prevent me from continuing to seek improvement. I'm glad to see the additions to the map of sites in the U.S. and Canada, but I'm still a bit puzzled by the "Sylacauga" entry in Alabama, since most sources I've seen (including the linked Wikipedia article) say that the heavy water plant was at Childersburg. Some sources and the MP article text say the plant was "near Sylacauga" which I suppose is an indication that no one is expected to have heard of Childersburg. However, Sylacauga has about 13,000 people versus about 5,000 in Childersburg, so it's not obvious that Sylacauga is much less obscure than Childersburg. IMHO, the map should label "Childersburg" rather than "Sylacauga", the text should give both place names (for example, say it was "near Sylacauga at Childersburg"). --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that all contemporary sources refer to Sylacauga, and any book on the subject will refer to Sylacauga. So as far as this goes, yes it more obscure. It seems that the city limits and the zip code were moved some time in the 1950s. Mentioned both in the text, but want to retain "Sylacauga" on the map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably one of the best articles I've seen on Wikipedia. JefffBeck (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hewlett, Richard G.; Duncan, Francis (1969). Atomic Shield, 1947–1952. A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN0-520-07187-5. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Home, R. W.; Low, Morris F. (September 1993). "Postwar Scientic Intelligence Missions to Japan". Isis. 84 (3). The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society: 527–537. JSTOR235645. ((cite journal)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Weinberg, Alvin M. (21 July 1961). "Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States". Science, New Series. 134 (3473). American Association for the Advancement of Science: 161–164. JSTOR1708292. ((cite journal)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Comment: On first, partial appraisal, the writing looks very good. In copyediting the lede, I made one substantive alteration, which merits discussion.
While the lede stated that the Trinity Test took place at Alamogordo, N.M., I noticed that the lede to our topical article Trinity (nuclear test) states that it took place near Socorro, N.M., and does not mention Alamogordo. In Working on the Bomb, S. L. Sanger summarizes the issue:
Usually, the test is linked with Alamogordo, New Mexico, probably because the Manhattan Project borrowed the site from the Army's Alamogordo Gunnery and Bombing Range, now the Army's White Sands Missile Range. The town itself is 60 miles south. The closest towns of any size are Socorro and Carrizozo, 30–35 miles away.
Convention seems to call for Alamogordo to be used in a context such as our summary lede, while an interest in accuracy suggests that it is preferable to name the bombing range, rather than the town. I have made that change. (I will also add the name of the range to the lede of the Trinity Test article.)
Just bringing myself up to speed. By the time Trinity was conducted, the site was no longer officially designated the Alamogordo Gunnery and Bombing Range, but was the White Sands Proving Ground, which incorporated the Alamogordo Range along with ORDCIT (the name of another, smaller range) and portions of the Fort Bliss Artillery Range. It is White Sands that needs to be named in the lede, which I have done; I will leave it to the primary contributors to determine if and how "Alamogordo" should also be included in the lede. (The most obvious way would be "...conducted at the White Sands Proving Ground near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." If that change is desired, then we will want to modify the lede to the Trinity article in complementary fashion.) In any event, White Sands definitely needs to be named in the main text in the Trinity subsection.
In the lede, I find two other issues, related to each other, that need to be dealt with:
(1) It is fine to title the infobox with a name that is different from that used for the article title, if the name used in the infobox is more official or complete, so long as the relationship to the featured name is clear. It is not currently clear in this case. In part, that is because the infobox title—"Manhattan Engineer District (MED)"—does not appear in the lede, whereas the implicitly official "Manhattan District" does. Given point 2, below, the infobox title should probably be changed to either "Manhattan Project" or "Manhattan District". If the primary contributors strongly favor "Manhattan Engineer District (MED)" for the infobox, then that term must appear in the text of the lede.
(2) The following statement in the lede is not supported by the main text:
The Army component of the project was designated the Manhattan District, but "Manhattan" gradually superseded the official codename, "Development of Substitute Materials", for the entire project.
When we turn to the main text, we do not find this supposed distinction--that "Development of Substitute Materials" officially defined the entire project, while "Manhattan District" officially defined only its Army component.
The main text tells us, "Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project 'Development of Substitute Materials.'" I note that all three men were Army officers.
The main text then tells us, "Since [Army] engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to instead name it the Manhattan District." Nowhere between the first statement I have quoted and the second is there the slightest suggestion that one name was designating the entire project while the other was designating merely a portion of it.
We then learn that "Manhattan District" was made the official name and "Informally, it was known as the Manhattan Engineer District, or MED."
If the main text is correct and, for relevant purposes, complete, then the lede is currently incorrect and must be edited to agree with the main text. Of course, it is possible that the lede is correct, in which case the main text here must be corrected and/or expanded.
Assuming the main text is correct, here is the status of each name in summary fashion:
Development of Substitute Materials: official codename
Manhattan District: official name
Manhattan Engineer District (MED): original informal name
Manhattan Project: later informal, and now conventional, name
Again, I believe this suggests that either "Manhattan District" or "Manhattan Project" is a better title for the infobox than "Manhattan Engineer District (MED)". It also raises a third issue:
(3) It would be helpful to readers—though it is not absolutely necessary—if the article stated when and where the phrase "Manhattan Project" was first verifiably used.
I look forward to reading the rest of the article.—DCGeist (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the term "White Sands Missile Range" is anachronistic. It was the Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range in 1941, and became the White Sands Proving Ground in 1945. I prefer "Alamagordo" in the lead, but linked to White Sands.
Both the lead and main text are correct. The lead simply summarizes the main text. I have changed the infobox title to "Manhattan District". "Manhattan Project" and "Manhattan District" are not the same thing. The infobox refers to the Manhattan District.
I am uncertain as to when "Manhattan Project" was first used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, while you state "the term 'White Sands Missile Range' is anachronistic", neither I nor the source I adduced advocated using that term for events in 1945. I explicitly favored the version of the name pertinent at the time, the White Sands Proving Ground.
(1) At any rate, while a reasonable case can be made for either "Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range" or "White Sands Proving Ground" on the grounds of accuracy, your preference here for the former is problematic in two ways:
It is a violation of WP:EGG. If White Sands Missile Range is the proper link, then our Manual of Style strongly favors White Sands Proving Ground for the text.
It addresses a "problem" (the potential absence of "Alamogordo" from the lede) for which there is a superior solution. I suggested it in my previous comment: "...conducted at the White Sands Proving Ground near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." This gets both crucial terms into the lede, at no expense to accuracy or clarity, without violating WP:EGG, and for a net addition of just two words.
I've now looked at multiple high-quality sources, and I can see that the case on accuracy for "White Sands Proving Ground" may be even weaker than that for "Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range". Most particularly, in White Sands Missile Range (2009), credited to Darren Court and the White Sands Missile Range Museum, the Trinity test site is explicitly placed "80 miles north of the White Sands Proving Ground" in a location "that had also been part of the Alamogordo Bombing Range". (The location is now apparently part of the White Sands Missile Range.) I'm ready to say that the current solution is acceptable, though others may well fell that the exclusion of "White Sands" from the lede and/or the EGG-ishness of the solution and/or the questionable accuracy of the phrasing are objectionable. However, I will say this: Given the irresolvable diversity of authoritative descriptions of the official designation of the military range encompassing the site, I would go with this: "...conducted in the Jornada del Muerto desert basin near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." No, not conventional, but irrefutable.—DCGeist (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(2) In your response, you emphasize that "'Manhattan Project' and 'Manhattan District' are not the same thing." Indeed. But that should have drawn your attention to another problem in the lede paragraph. According to our Manual of Style, it is alternative names for the article title name that are conventionally bolded in the lede. As the Manhattan District represents only a portion of the Manhattan Project, per your emphatic reminder, it is not a true alternative name—though its bolding in the lede is certainly defensible and I agree with it. Development of Substitute Materials, on the other hand, is a true alternative name for the Manhattan Project. It thus should probably be bolded in any event; as the less synonymous Manhattan District is bolded, Development of Substitute Materials really must be as well here. I have made that edit.
(3) Attention is now brought to another issue. Development of Substitute Materials is referred to as a "codename" in the lede, but simply as a "name" in the main text. Well, a codename is a special, unusual sort of name. If "codename" is correct (i.e., WP:Verifiable), then that lede characterization needs to be supported and should also appear in the main text. Also, if "codename" is correct, that arguably justifies the ubiquitous use of quote marks around DSM. But if it's just a name like Manhattan District, then in most grammatical constructions under your prevailing style it should have no quotes around it, just like Manhattan District. (And that would be OK, because just as with Manhattan District those proper noun capitals already mark it out and render quote marks unnecessary much of the time.)
(4) You declare that "both the lead and main text are correct," but fail to acknowledge the problem that I clearly identified and detailed—that the lede's claim that the Army part of the project was designated the "Manhattan District" while the official designation for the entire project was "Development of Substitute Materials" was not well supported. I see you did edit the relevant main text passage to make it more clear and supportive of the lede, though you, oddly, did not see fit to mention that in this thread. The edit was helpful, but insufficient. Let me try to draw your attention to the crux of the problem. It has been in this passage:
Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project "Development of Substitute Materials", but Groves felt that this would draw attention. Since engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to instead name it the Manhattan District.
Given the phrase "instead name it", any sensible reading must conclude that "it" is "the project" given a different name in the preceding sentence—implicitly, the project as a whole.
I have changed the passage to the following, which is clearer and conforms with your (I believe proper) assertion that the lede is correct:
Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project "Development of Substitute Materials", but Groves felt that this would draw attention. Since engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to name the Army's component of the project the Manhattan District.
If that can be improved on, great, but what we can't do is have it as it was.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's call this...
(5) In the process of making a simple style-related copyedit to the Cost section, I checked a source and discovered a significant problem in the text. The text claimed:
By comparison, the total price [of the Manhattan Project] by the end of 1945 was about 60% of the total cost spent on all other bombs, mines, and grenades produced [by the US]
According to the source cited, the total cost of the Manhattan Project by the end of 1945 in constant 1996 dollars was $21.57 billion. And according to the source cited, the total cost of "All bombs, mines and grenades" for that period in like currency was $31.5 billion.
So, if source's "All bombs, mines and grenades" does not include the four Manhattan Project bombs, then the cost of the latter was 68% of the cost of all other bombs, mines, and grenades. On the other hand, if source's "All bombs, mines and grenades" does include the four Manhattan Project bombs, then the cost of the latter was 217% of the cost of all other bombs, mines, and grenades. The source cited does not make clear whether "All bombs, mines and grenades" does or does not include the Manhattan bombs. In either case, the percentage given was significantly off. For the moment, I have deleted the unverified and inaccurate claim. Another source must be adduced if some version of it is to be restored.—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's call this...
(6) There were issues with both insignia images in the infobox. I was able to correct one: The source for the unofficial Manhattan Project emblem was a Google Books link that led to a page that neither illustrated nor discussed the emblem. I have substituted a link that, it is to be hoped, will lead everyone to the proper page. The nominator might want to add the hardcopy cite as well to the image page, as Google Books links are fairly fickle (which is why I never use them myself). The other is entirely up to the nominator to correct: The Commons image page for the Manhattan District shoulder patch provides no support whatsoever for the claim that the image content originally came from a United States Armed Forces badge or logo. Personally, I have no doubt that it did, but the image page, of course, must give us some means, however cursory, to verify that.—DCGeist (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That patch has been described to me, by proud veterans of the project (the few survivors of whom are now very elderly), as the patch of the Army Corps' Special Engineer Detachment (article is Special Engineering Detachment, lame as that article is). Thus, it is not a patch for the entire project, but only for some of the military personnel assigned to it. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The third page of the online document at [2] (a copy of a published memoir) has a black and white photo of the patch with a caption that indicates that the patch was issued after the Hiroshima bombing. Thus, not only was it specific to the SEDs, but it was essentially a souvenir. (I think I've heard that before.) --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nichols, The Road to Trinity, pp. 226-227 tells the story of the patch. It was actually designed by the WAC detachment. Nichols tells how he went through all the hoops to have it officially approved by General Somervell, Secretary Patterson, the Quartermater General and the Adjutant General. See this photographHawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also: have a close look at this photograph, which is in the article itself. General Groves is wearing the patch. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added three citations to the file page; in sum, they should address any questions.—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have DCGeist's other comments been addressed? Ucucha (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have. I was waiting to find time to read the whole thing top to bottom to make my support explicit, but I have no outstanding concerns.—DCGeist (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
"cost nearly US$2 billion ($24.4 billion in current dollars).": You and I know there's a template lurking there that will update the inflation figure every year, but without looking at the edit screen, the reader has no way to know that, and will likely assume that the figure will become dated. I tweaked it to: "This is roughly equivalent to $((Formatnum:((Inflation|US|(price)|(year)|r=2)))) as of 20((CURRENTYEARYY)).((Inflation-fn|US))", which will update the year as it updates the inflation price. The inflation template page asks for a citation, which is provided by the inflation-fn template. There's some disagreement over when the inflation template is the relevant measure. (Not my area, so I won't get into it.)
postwar vs. post-war; the former has more support in AmEng dictionaries, the latter in other dictionaries. There were lots of both; I went with "postwar".
"He also agreed to coordinate the effort with that of the British, and on 11 October he sent a message to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, suggesting that they correspond on atomic matters.": If this is accurate, it might be better: "On 11 October he sent a message to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, suggesting that they correspond on atomic matters and coordinate their efforts."
I added an "s" after Beams', and Nageh reverted. There's an argument from MOS:POSS that I shouldn't have added the s, since MOS lists 3 acceptable styles, so I changed it from one acceptable style to another. However, American guidance has (finally!) started to coalesce around recommending the "s"; I can give you a long list, but it's simplest and usually best to track Chicago, in this case 7.16: "including names ending in s, x or z". If I can ask a favor, let me at least copyedit this so that we'll have a link to point to that conforms to Chicago, then if people want to fiddle around with it, that's their business. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ad apostrophe s: I reverted in the sense of WP:BRD but I'm open to any outcome, i.e., feel free to put it back in. Nageh (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All these changes are fine.
A lot of editors wanted a cost figure in the lead. I am very aware of the drawbacks of CPI, having been involved with MEIs for some years. I was most concerned that it would not seem very much to a modern reader in comparison with, say the International Space Station or the Joint Strike Fighter Program.
AmEng seems to be moving away from hyphens.
The text is accurate. To me, there is a subtle different between the two: Roosevelt's initial reluctance.
My AusEng style guide requires the additional s where the subject is singular.
Agreed, we lose hyphens every year, I don't know if that's a worldwide trend. Good to know about the 's.
"Nor were they impressed with estimates ...": Is "they" Marshall and Groves? Whose estimates?
I'm going to leave "codename" alone, even though Webster's New World apparently thinks it's two words, and Merriam-Webster likes "code name" for the noun and "code-name" for the verb.
"1,200 tons", "1,720 tons": short tons? What is that in tonnes? - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long tons. 1,200 long tons (1,200 t); 1,720 long tons (1,750 t). Note the effect of scientific rounding, of which I heartily approve. Basically, I did not feel that the difference was great enough. What you always have to be on the lookout for is the measurement tons. I have added conversion templates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note: I think I can finish up in two hours, and I may leave cranky edit summaries and revert people while I'm doing it, because Wikipedia is horribly slow right now for long articles like this. I'll do more explaining of my edits when I'm done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that someone just inserted a fact-tag on a footnote; I'm guessing it's sourced in the following citation. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing. "Instead, it was placed atop a steel tower 800 yards (730 m) from the weapon, nicknamed "the Gadget", as a rough measure of how powerful the explosion would be.": Put modifying phrases next to the words they modify when possible, and it's possible here. - Dank (push to talk)
Taking a guess on this and the next two so I can finish up and support. I moved things around, although I'm not confident that I got the cites in the right places. - Dank (push to talk)
"An Alsos team went to Stassfurt in the Soviet Occupation Zone and retrieved 11 tons of ore from WIFO. In April 1945, ..." If this happened before April 1945, maybe "in what became the Soviet Occupation Zone"? (I can't tell from our article what period that phrase applies to.) If after, then the narrative isn't chronological. - Dank (push to talk)
I went with "in what became ..." - Dank (push to talk)
"... Silverplate, the codename modification of B-29s to carry the bombs." Our article says: "Silverplate was the code reference for the United States Army Air Forces participation in the Manhattan Project during World War II." So, was Silverplate the codename for just the modification of the B-29s, or for everything the USAAF did in support of Manhattan? - Dank (push to talk)
Okay, it looks like the name "Silverplate" was used that way at that time. - Dank (push to talk)
Support—This is an excellent article on an important topic and I think it satisfies the FAC criteria. My primary concerns were addressed. There are a couple of unaddressed concerns, but I can live with those. Thanks for your revisions. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—Overall excellent, but there are a few areas that I think need to be refined:
In the first paragraph of 'Origins', it looks like the authors are using some creative arrangement of the details. But to me the flow doesn't work very well. The writing implies that the reader should already know about the Einstein–Szilárd letter, then launches into an explanation. It should begin with the writing of the letter, then lead into the formation of the advisory committee.
"Oliphant goaded the Americans into action" requires clarification. The Americans were already "in action", as indicated by the earlier paragraphs.
Not sure about this. It says a proposal was made and an executive order was signed; that doesn't mean anything was happening. In the next paragraph, the project was approved, not long after Oliphant's goading, so I don't see anything in the writing that makes it implausible that he had an effect. - Dank (push to talk)
Yes, but what effect is it talking about? Approval, planning and coordination are certainly activities. I think the article should better define "in action". RJH (talk)
Hawkeye fiddled with these sentences; looks good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not clear how Oliphant persuaded the Americans. Was it because he met with the Uranium Committee and spoke with Lawrence? Who did eventually get the effort going? Nageh (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is hard to explain. Oliphant could be a very persuasive person, and once Lawrence got going his enthusiasm was enormous. All American accounts credit Oliphant with sparking the American effort. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much clearer now. I did read it up eventually in a copy of the History of the US AEC book before incidentally discovering that it was the same source you were using. :) Nageh (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is "the centrifuge project"? The three methods have already been listed.
"Compton recommended Oppenheimer, who had two drawbacks." This reads as peculiar because it is normal to state the positive benefits of the choice before the liabilities. I.e. "X recommended Y, who was brilliant, a capable leader, and well-respected by the scientists. However, he had two drawbacks."
Tweaked. From memory, Hawkeye has previously pointed to his excellent reputation as a project manager. Hawkeye, is that covered in the sources cited? - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, he had no such experience. You have to remember that the scope of the bomb design was not foreseen to be as great as it later became. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I was trying to remember: "... Oppenheimer was not known ... to be an efficient leader of large projects." I had it right except for the "not" :) What you've got now looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...concerns that even Oak Ridge was too close to Knoxville...": this should clarify that it was "too close to a population center", rather than just to Knoxville in particular.
Done, and good call; your way requires just a little less effort for the readers to parse it. I left it alone when I saw it because I'm "over my limit" (and over Hawkeye's limit too, I suspect :) on minor tweaks designed to make the article just a little easier to read. This is one reason multiple copyeditors are a big plus. Btw, you're doing great. - Dank (push to talk)
"...about the poor access road and the water supply...": was the concern of the lack of a water supply?
Stet; I don't know what else "water supply" could mean here. - Dank (push to talk)
Bacterial or chemical contamination, for one. RJH (talk)
"When" only matters if the changeover was significant in some way ... if there was some drama, or it made a difference. I don't think it would harm the text to include a date, but Wikipedia sometimes gets a little boring mentioning dates of no real significance, I think. - Dank (push to talk)
If it doesn't matter, why mention it? The sentence already says Cockroft was the first director, implying a future change. RJH (talk)
What would you like to see here? Would you prefer we not mention Lewis? - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can determine, Bennett Lewis took over in 1946. The lab was apparently closed the same year. If so, is it worth even mentioning him? RJH (talk)
That does seem to be after the meat of this story; I removed "first" (which raised the question of who was second), and the mention of Lewis; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "The first director of the new laboratory was to be John Cockroft, although he was replaced before the first pile went critical by W. B. Lewis, who went on to dominate the Canadian nuclear scene for decades." Given the nature of the article, I thought that he should be mentioned. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems incorrect. According to Lewis' biography, he took over in September, 1946—a year after ZEEP went critical. I'm also curious to know why the article is covering the Canadian nuclear reactors. Did they make some contribution to the Manhattan Project? RJH (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were part of the Manhattan Project. It included the Canadian effort. This had important ramifications for the US-Canada-UK relationship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...preferred design for the nuclear reactors were helium cooled...": Should 'design' be plural or 'were' singular?
Oops! I at least try to catch subject/verb agreement. Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
"3 tons": was the unit in use? Normally an article on a scientific topic will use SI, per WP:UNITS. In the next section the text switches to using long tons, with metric tonnes in parentheses. Consistency would be good.
Yep, Hawkeye was working on these today. - Dank (push to talk)
"Edgar Sengier, the director of Union Minière du Haut Katanga, the mine owner." Should it not say "the owner and director of..."?
Nope. Tweaked to "the company that owned the mine". - Dank (push to talk)
I'm not clear that the image gallery in the 'Ore' satisfies WP:IG. However, the ((Multiple image)) template could be used to move the images inline.
"...hybrid of the familiar laboratory mass spectrometer and cyclotron." Most readers will not be "familiar" with these devices. Please use a more appropriate word.
Oh, excellent point. Tweaked to "standard". - Dank (push to talk)
"It was reckoned that..." seems too folksy and may be WP:WEASEL.
I paused there too, for those two reasons. What made me go on was that "reckoned" is also used in non-folksy contexts ("he reckoned on the first bullet but not on the second"), and we've got a running battle in history articles over what constitutes excessive weaseliness, and I don't want to use my copyeditor role to get the last word in. But you're quite right to point out the possibility that reviewers may want attribution here (apart from the obvious advice: click on the cite for the attribution). - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye removed "it was reckoned that", and on reflection, you're both right and I'm wrong, as judged by the usual reactions from reviewers. I'll remove phrases like this in the future if the sentence can stand without them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Y-12 shipped its first few hundred grams of uranium enriched to between 13% and 15% uranium-235 to Los Alamos in March 1944": is an awkward sentence. Please re-write it.
"...uranium-235 feed in by January 1945." An unnecessary 'in' here? Or perhaps 'fed in'?
I went with "feed", but maybe it should have been "fed in". - Dank (push to talk)
"Electro-deposited nickel mesh..." seems a little ambiguous. Is the mesh being electro-plated with nickel, or is the mesh being created by that process?
Hawkeye rewrote this; seems clear now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...which now only had to work with uranium-235...": this statement is puzzling to me. What did it "work" with before? Is this a reference to the idea of a plutonium gun device that was briefly mentioned in the lead? If so, the text should clarify this because plutonium is not covered until the next section.
Yes, that is right. I will re-word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Metallurgical Laboratory eventually developed an improved welding technique...": When?
"It seemed that the reactor had a half-life..." seems to be WP:WEASEL.
Not really; obviously reactors do not have half-lives. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no. You can't expect all readers to understand that, nor to recognize what appears to be a physics joke. RJH (talk)
I removed the "half-life" sentence ... feel free to revert, Hawkeye, but I think the readers got specific enough information in the previous two sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it needs to be removed; just attributed to somebody. Thanks. RJH (talk)
The point is that the periodic nature of the problem provided the clue as to what was wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point you added about the xenon isotope's half-life made it clearer I think, Hawkeye. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...before settling on ... the fast explosive and ... slow explosive": I think this needs a little more clarification. Why are there two types of explosives?
Sorry but I don't think that will suffice. A reader shouldn't have to hunt in other articles for an explanation. It should be easy enough to include a brief explanation as a sentence clause. RJH (talk)
I went with an extra clause, feel free to tweak: "fast and slow explosives were needed to focus the compression wave on the spherical core."
That's fine. It really took a von Neumann to think of this. My approach would have been like Neddermeyer, who used explosives to crush a cylinder into something resembling a rock. This is not good enough though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Between January 1943 and June 1945, there were 62 fatalities and 3,879 disabling injuries, which was about 62 percent below that of private industry." Wait, what? Is this a comparison by rate, or by total? is it compared to a specific industry? It's difficult to believe that private industry killed more 62 people out of 129,000 every two years. But perhaps I'm mistaken.
Comparison rate. (added) Yes, you're mistaken. In 2009, the fatality rate in the United States was 3.3 per 100,000 workers per year. So a similar project today would expect 3.3 x 1.29 x 2.5 = 11 fatalities. But things were more dangerous in the 1940s. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. RJH (talk)
In the Legacy section, the association between the "Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory" and the Manhattan Project is unclear. It is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, and it does not appear on the Project sites map.
The radLab? It appears in the electromagnetism section. Decided to link it down the bottom too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great work RJ. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please check ISBN formatting consistency. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are inconsistent of course. Ran a script that makes them all the same. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged the Physics WikiProject on this FAC well before the restart; can anyone confirm whether anyone from WP Physics has been by? If not, they had their notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked user pages of folks who have weighed in after the restart; no one is obviously a member of PHYSICS, though Orlady has personal knowledge of Oak Ridge, and RJHall is a member of the Astronomy project. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In References, Hewlett and Hansen are wikilinked twice. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have all concerns been addressed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
