The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [1].Reply[reply]

---

Trinity (nuclear test)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the very first nuclear test, and the most famous. I promised last year that I would do my best to get it through FAC in time for the 70th anniversary on 16 July 2015. It has been nearly ten years since its previous nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Image review
• "Once the NCI assessment is complete in 2015/2016, due to Trinity being a near surface burst, it may end up in this top ten list." - Would preferably need a reference or to be cited in the body

  I've removed the fallout chart. When the NCI is complete, I'll add Trinity to it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Trinity Test Fireball 16ms.jpg - Fine
• File:Trinity Site Obelisk National Historic Landmark.jpg - What is the copyright on the underlying sculpture and plaque? No freedom of panorama in the US for sculptures.

  No freedom of panorama in America for anything. You don't even own the view out your window. First of all, the land is owned by the Federal government. Photography is permitted. I thought the monument was interesting enough to add this to the article: "The Trinity monument, a rough-sided, lava-rock obelisk about 12 feet (3.7 m) high, marks the explosion's hypocenter.[130] It was erected in 1965 by Army personnel from the White Sands Missile Range using local rocks taken from the western boundary of the range.[134] The memorial plaque on the obelisk was prepared by the Army and the National Park Service, and was unveiled on the 30th anniversary of the test in 1975.(135)" Thus both the monument and the memorial plaque were prepared by Federal employees as part of their duties, and are therefore in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • • I don't understand what you're going for with the first two sentences. Freedom of panorama is a fairly specific concept, and the US only allows it for buildings. That being said, if this was initially designed and built by the federal government, this needs to be noted on the image page, preferably with a reference. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• File:USA New Mexico location map.svg - Fine
• File:Trinity Test Site.jpg - Fine
• File:TrinitySiteISS008-E-5604.jpg - Preferably there should be a reference for the location of the site, considering people have had to correct the placement of the arrow in the past.
• File:Trinity basecamp.jpg - Fine, though at least a rough estimate of the date would be useful.

  Added approximate date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Trinity - Jumbo brought to site.jpg - Date? An information template would be really useful here

  Added approximate date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Trinity Test - 100 Ton Test - High Explosive Stack 002.jpg - Again, any information on when this was?

  Added approximate date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:HD.4G.053 (10540204545).jpg - Fine
• File:Fat Man design model.png - Reference used when creating this?

  In the accompanying article by Alex Wellerstein. HowardMorland obtained OTRS permission to use the diagram. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Trinity tower.jpg - Again, an information template, with the date and image creator, would be nice here

  Added approximate date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Trinity device readied.jpg - Fine
• File:Trinity shot color.jpg - Fine
• File:Trinity test.ogg - Fine
• File:Trinity-ground-zero-men-in-crater.jpg - Should have an information template, and be cropped to remove the notes. The link doesn't lead to the page with the file
• File:Trinity crater (annotated) 2.jpg - Fine
• File:Trinity - Jumbo after test.jpg - Should have an information template and the trimmings

  Added, but nervous about this in view of the Infobox case Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Commons =/= Wikipedia, and information template =/= infobox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Trinity Test - Lead lined Sherman tank.jpg - Source doesn't indicate that this is a US government photograph. Reference for that? Also, should note the page number (10-13)

  Per Hoddeson et al, figure 18.2. p. 356 or therebouts - I don't have my copy with me. The give the LANL photograph id as J10F129-12. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Alright, to ensure that we have something that notes that this is actually a government work, I'd cite that on the file page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Trinity Test - Oppenheimer and Groves at Ground Zero 001.jpg - Author? Date (year, at least?)

  It was taken on 9 September 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:US nuclear test exposure.png - Fine
• File:TrinitySiteHistoricalMarkerHighwaySign.jpg - What's the copyright of the underlying plaque? No freedom of panorama in the US for sculptures.

  Per the above, the plaque was created by the Army and National Park Service. Not sure it counts as a sculpture, but is a US government work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Then it should be noted as a government work (i.e. PD-USGov). Yeah, plaques are 3D enough for "sculpture". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Trinity Site - Remnants of Jumbo - 2010.jpg - Fine
• File:Trinity Site - Tourists at ground zero.jpg - Fine
• File:Trinity site plaque.jpg - What's the copyright of the underlying plaque? No freedom of panorama in the US for sculptures.

  Per the above, the plaque was created by the Army and National Park Service. Not sure it counts as a sculpture, but is a US government work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Then it should be noted as a government work (i.e. PD-USGov) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done, but I am always cautious about making changes on Commons, which has very different rules from us. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I know, but when in Rome... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Cars-at-trinity-site-2014.jpg - Fine — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Check consistency of wikilinking in citations
• Compare FNs9 and 37
• FN49 should name the speaker
• FN52 et al: should be "Restricted Data" not "Restricted data" (and why do FN55/105 include subtitle but the others not?), and should include publication date
• FN70 should italicize publication, and the source site has more details on the original publication (page numbers, etc) that could be included
• FNs73, 86, 126, 127 are incomplete
• FNs76, 103 need publisher
• Compare FNs 26 and 85
• Compare FNs 92 and 93
• FN132 has a formatting error
• Bainbridge 1975 publication shouldn't include quotation marks, italics are sufficient
• Some books include locations, others don't
• DC or D.C.? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is called "Washington, D.C.", so we'll go with that. All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User SkoreKeep disagrees: "DC, without periods, is the (ANSI/ISO standard) designation for the district, just as MD is Maryland and NJ is New Jersey". So standadised on that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

• "))" (multiple): MOS frowns on this.

  I'll take your word for it. I'be reverted back to the original form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "with Bethe stating that he was swayed with his authority over a more junior member": I'm not sure what that means.

  One of those odd ones where you have to think about, and once you follow it, are unsure why you had to think about. Rewritten thus: Bethe's choice of 8 kt was exactly the value calculated by Segrè, with Bethe stating that he was swayed by Segrè's authority over that of a more junior member of Segrè's group who had calculated 20 kt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "A number of factors went into the choice of date and time. Most were meteorological. ... It was therefore scheduled for 16 July, the earliest date at which the bomb components would be available.": The last sentence seems to contradict the first two.

  Well spotted. Deleted the first two sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Maps of the ground dose rate pattern from the device's fallout at +1 hour, and +12 hours.": ?

  Part of a caption left over from a deleted image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "In 2014 a National Cancer Institute study commenced, which together with diet questionnaires, will attempt to close this gap": IMO "together with diet questionnaires" raises questions that aren't answered (such as, why isn't it considered part of the study?). Could that part be omitted?

  Yes. I think it is more comprehensible as: In 2014 a National Cancer Institute study commenced, which will attempt to close this gap. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I copyedited part of this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you once again! Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support with a few small comments:

• The McDonald Ranch House could use a sentence or so to explain that the government seized it.

  Added. When I bring an article up to featured, I normally create a "spin off" article. In this case it is McDonald Ranch House, which is itself a GA. It has its own spin off: Niles J. Fulwyler. Like most Americans during World War II, the ranchers strongly supported the war effort until the government asked them to make a sacrifice. Then it was, "why pick on me?" The government acquired the land by condemnation (in Australia, we would say "resumption"), a process called eminent domain. The MacDonalds, for example, held 640 acres (260 ha) of patented land and grazing rights on 22,535.87 acres (9,119.94 ha) of Federal and 4,468.34 acres (1,808.27 ha) of state land. Ranchers were paid for the land they owned, and in 1942 Congress amended the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 to provide for compensation for ranchers whose permits were cancelled. The government suspended the grazing rights in the area for the duration, as the War Department was unsure as to whether the land would be required for military purposes after the war. Only in the 1970s did condemnation and cancellation replace lease and suspension at White Sands. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I thought "amongst" was British English and "among" was American. Could be wrong about that.

  No, they have the same meaning but different usage. We use them both. I found an Oxford Dictionaries article on Abolishing angst regarding among versus amongst which says that "amongst is comparatively rare in US English but ... this spelling is by no means unknown across the water. However, many authorities (such as Garner’s Modern American Usage) and language blogs state that, in US English, amongst is now seen as old-fashioned, and even 'pretentious'." I have switched to "among", but it reads awkwardly to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Very nice article. I hope to see it on the Main Page soon. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you for your review! I am hoping that it can be promoted in time to run on 16 July 2015, the 70th anniversary of the event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Sometimes the comments are almost as much fun as the article. Amongst, among, etc. Friends to the north (Canadians) use the -st but we Yanks think of it as pretentious. On the other hand, what do we know? I reviewed this at the last go around at A-review in Mhist and the (prose) questions I raised there have been resolved. I'm happy with it, and look forward to seeing it on the front page soon! auntieruth (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note - Have the few issues with the images all been resolved? Graham Beards (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know they have all been addressed. @Crisco 1492: Is everything okay? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support I read through the article and I found only a couple of issues:

• "although its tower did not" so there was a separate tower for it asides from the one where the explosion actually took place?
• "calculated by Segrè" mention here who is him and what is his authority
• "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" is discussed twice within several sentences distance

Nergaal (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. it was hoisted up a steel tower 800 yards (730 m) from the explosion
2. Added: the head of the Los Alamos Laboratory's P-5 (Radioactivity) Group
3. Re-worded.

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.