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.

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

An article packed with espionage and behind the lines stuff, as the Alsos Mission attempted to discover the secret of the Nazi nuclear and biological weapons programs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is a fascinating and well written and researched article. Some of its wording needs to be tightened, however:
  • Should 'or Alsos Mission' be 'or the Alsos Mission'?
    • Added "the" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should briefly state what the Manhattan Project was in the lead
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission's codename Alsos was the Greek name for a grove, in a play on Groves's name." - this occurs in the article before Leslie R. Groves is introduced
    • Added Groves to the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know when in 1943 Styer approached Groves? Also, what was Styer's position?
    • Added bit about Styer. Groves says "in the fall of 1943". Fall is an American term meaning "Spring". It had to be between the invasion of Italy in September 1943, and the despatch of Pash in November. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Origin' section should also explain what the Manhattan Project involved
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nationality of Kenneth Strong should be identified when he's first mentioned
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably better to red link Francesco Giordani rather than link to the article on the Italian language Wikipedia
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Groves sent Furman to Britain to discuss to discuss the establishment of a London Liaison Office for the Manhattan Project the British government" - something is needed before 'the British Government' (eg, 'with' or 'to')
  • Added "with" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the French Wiki article on the Porte d'Orléans linked?
    • The English one incorrectly links to a metro station. Renamed the metro page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and its uranium processing plant in Olen, Belgium, where uranium ore." seems to be missing some words
  • What was R-Force?
    • Er, good question. I found a description of the unit here Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Köln' should be 'Cologne'
    • Why? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the common English-language name for the city (and I can attest the term is currently used on tourist-focused signage around the city itself as well). Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I thought it was just a matter of spelling, like Ieper and Ypres, depending on whether my brain was in French or German mode. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Norwegian heavy water sabotage is linked in the body of the article, and so shouldn't be in the see also section
    • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lineage of File:German Experimental Pile - Haigerloch - April 1945-2.jpg seems a bit unclear from what's in its record on Commons - can you clarify its sourcing? It's almost certainly PD (as either PD-US Government or copyright expired in the UK), but it's unclear where it actually came from. The partial credit to David Irving raises some red flags!
    • David Irving obtained an actual copy of the photograph, which is now in the Haigerloch Museum, while researching his book Virus House. This was reproduced for H. V. Jones' book Secret War. This is where someone scanned it from. Another copy is in the Brookhaven National Laboratory, where it was deposited by Goudsmit. There is at least one other copy out there, in the Alsos files at NARA. The original photograph was taken by Mickey Thurgood, the Alsos Mission's official photographer. He only joined the Mission in April 1945, so that is why that period is covered so well, and the earlier period not at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not use any of Virus House because of the controversy about Irving, although it is okay really. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing of File:Pash boris c1.jpg and File:Haigerloch uranium cubes uncovered.jpg are a bit unclear - where is it stated that these were created by Mickey Thurgood on the source website? (I imagine that they are PD, but this should be clarified if possible)
    • It is in Pash's book. (Well, he says they took the photographer along.) People usually like me to provide as much information about the date and circumstances surrounding the creation of images as I can. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only references used in this article I've got access to is Warren 1956 (as it's online). Both references to it are accurate and free of close paraphrasing. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jones is also available online. Linked. And you can check Groves at Google books if you like. Search on "Alsos" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All my comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. I may spot check some additional references if I have time, but I'm confident that they'd be OK given your record and the results of the checks I did make. Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: looks quite good. I've made a some tweaks to the article. Please check that you are happy with my edits and adjust as you see fit. One thing I noticed was that there is some mixture of English variation. For instance US ("caliber", "organized") and British (armoured, disorganised, minimise, characterised). Which variation are you wanting to use? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Standardised on US Spelling. A little tricky as the spell checker wants to use Australian spellings. (A mixture is actually historically accurate though.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a couple more minor tweaks. Looks good, I'm happy to add my support for A-class. Overall it was one of the more interesting articles I've read on Wiki for some time. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Alsos_Mission#Germany. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the plan to copyedit two-thirds is working better at FAC than at A-class, so I'll continue.
• "It was discovered that most was sent": discovered from the same prisoners?
• "nuclear matter": nuclear material?
• "the intelligence staff General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's AFPAC.": ?
• "post-war": your call. There's more support in AmEng for "postwar".
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I have corrected all of these. The one I have most trouble with is "traveled", which violates the double L rule drummed into us in the first grade (and incorporated into my spell checker); but I was hoping that you would have an opinion on "aroused fears that the technique might be used in combination with biological agents, which the Japanese were known to be experimenting with." I could not remember whether hanging prepositions are valid in AmEng. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • M-W says one l or two, but then uses one themselves. But like most AmEng copyeditors, I listen when Garner's speaks, and he/it/they say one l in AmEng, two in BritEng. The "with" is perfectly okay at the end. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [1] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD or licensed and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • This is a little repetitive: "...but with the Anzio landings, Rome was expected to soon fall..." and "...The expectation that Rome would soon fall proved illusory, and by March 1944..." Perhaps consider "...The expectation that Rome would soon be captured proved illusory, and by March 1944...", or something similar? (suggestion only)
  • "As little thorium was in Germany or German-occupied Europe...", perhaps consider "As little thorium was available in Germany or German-occupied Europe..." (suggestion only)
  • This seems redundant: "Pash, now a lieutenant colonel, assumed command of the new unit upon its official..." (you previously introduced him as an LTCOL in the "Origin" section).
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "Three Netherlands officers and a Norwegian officer...", would "Dutch" work better?
  • "He was informed that the matter would have to be taken up with General Eisenhower...", General Eisenhower should just be Eisenhower as his rank has already been formally introduced per WP:SURNAME.
  • This seems awkward to me: "...and the 1.5 tons of uranium ingots were found buried in a field...", perhaps just "...and 1.5 tons of uranium ingots were found buried in a field..."?
  • Otherwise I found this to be a very well written and fascinating article. Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• All done. There are a lot of details in this article that I did not know when I started researching it. Glad you liked it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All my points have been actioned, so I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.