Manhattan Project
Manhattan Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
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)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is Hunner 2003 or 2004?
- No citations to Bird & Sherwin 2005, Norris 2002, Rhodes 1995, Feynman 1997, Libby 1979, Serber & Crease & Rhodes 1998, Ulam 1983. Don't have cited and uncited sources in the same section
- Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
- FN 25: is this material derived from Bethe 1991? If so, should include page number(s). If not, source?
- Use a consistent date format
- The correct name of the NYT is The New York Times
- Bernstein: don't double volume number
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in References
- ISBN for Hansen 1995?
- Be consistent in how volumes are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 replies:
- 2004. Corrected
- Removed the unused sources
- Removed unsed refs, consolidated into alphabetic order
- Added ref
- Done
- Corrected
- Corrected
- Added
- Done
Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed and tweaked the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. Some new problems: - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please fill in the missing WP:Checklist#second commas; it may be easiest just to check the changes since I last copyedited.
- "citing its natural beauty and views of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains would inspire those who would work on the project.": nonparallel
- "DuPont recommended the site be located ...": Omitting "that" is common in American newspapers now, but it makes some publishers grit their teeth. I'd recommend "DuPont recommended a site location ...". - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I misspoke here; I should have been clear that sometimes it's fine without "that", sometimes not. "recommended that it be" is better than "recommended it be" in AmEng, but many (including me) usually prefer to reword with a noun phrase, "recommended a site location" in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am not an expert on that versus which versus neither, but I think writing is generally better with less nominalizations. Clear actors and vigorous verbs make things less "wordy". Not taking verbs and turning them into concepts (more than needed). Little Red Schoolhouse has a good guide on this.TCO (reviews needed) 16:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I misspoke here; I should have been clear that sometimes it's fine without "that", sometimes not. "recommended that it be" is better than "recommended it be" in AmEng, but many (including me) usually prefer to reword with a noun phrase, "recommended a site location" in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 replies:
- Will go through and look for missing commas
- Added "which, it was hoped,"
- Omitting "that" used to be a distinctive feature of American English. Put it in.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Article looks good content-wise. Especially covering the huge technical and logistic effort involved in the separation (which most popular books do, too, but for some reason the public just connects the project to the mesa). Granted the mesa does have stronger memories in a way of the MP. I spent time in the 80s and there were still a few old hands left. Had lunch with the mold maker.
- At DuPont, there was a mythos, that the company had been the integral part of the separation effort ("we did half the Manhattan project"). This article seems to clarify that they were just involved with plutonium? Or were they a lead contractor in a sense for all the separation work? Do any U work?
- Sea story: (This ain't no shit, it really happened) My old man was the CO for the little amphib boat that trans-shipped the bomb from the Indy to Tinian. He said it was guarded by marines and they were not told what it was.
- Who ran the Argonne facility? Which contractor? (User:TCO - copied from talk page)
Hawkeye7 replies:
- DuPont was involved only with the Plutonium, which was indeed nearly "half of the project". They did no work with Uranium.
- The sea story is correct.
- The Argonne was run by the University of Chicago. Will add words to that effect
Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
TCO support, summary. I read the article reasonabley well (at a 1/3 parse level). The major topics are clearly well covered and at right level of depth. The writing has a nice "narrative feel" within paragraphs. Also (this is "ad hom", but...) I am impressed with us having a real historian writing an article. In terms of general concerns, I felt that there was too much blue linking. actually...the topic and our subordinate articles DRIVE a lot of blue linking. But given that, we should hold off whereever we can...in compensatory sympathy. for instance rear admiral does not need blue. In general, while the article does a good job of showing the extent of the isotope separation work, I could have been aided with some discussion in lead or upfront, (similar to what is at the very end). IOW, deviate a little from the narrative structure to an explanatory (up front) structure. In general the images were quite nice (shift change...yowza!), but given the level of detail perhaps a few more explantory graphics might help? I really like the map of facilities. Could we also have a flow chart of plants? Or people? Not sure the exact structure, but just think of the poor reader...could we do antyhing extra in this sort of format to make sense of all the K-25 and Y12 and this went to that? P.s. I will do did a deeper parse (in article order) at about the 2/3 level. I really feel that it does not need the 3/3 level of parsing as the author is clearly a professional by this article as well as his user tags.TCO (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support albeit with comment - the cost of the project is given in 1945 dollars. Would it be possible to have an inflation adjusted cost in 2011 dollars? I'm sure $2billion plus was a great deal (like you say, 30% of the cost of all the tanks built) - but how much of a big deal? Coolug (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support A brilliant article, scoring the criteria and about very important landmark by the way. Although, I have an very minor comment:
- Comments (leaning to Support). I've taken a careful read at the lead and a quick skim at the rest of the article; content-wise, it looks very good, but:
- Some of the links are less-than-useful or confusing: for example, the first one in President Franklin D. Roosevelt (on browsers which don't underline each link you have to hover on them to find out they're not one link; also, I don't think that many readers would want to read the article about presidents of the US in general, and for those who do, the article about Roosevelt links to it in the first sentence) or electromagnetic (can you guess where it takes beforehand? See WP:EGG). On the other hand, some technical terms such as “uranium hexafluoride” are not linked on the first occurrence. See WP:LINK.
- The picture in “Bomb design concepts” is too tall: it doesn't fit in my screen so I had to scroll down to read the caption and then back up. Its size could be reduced. Likewise, the map of the US in “Project sites” is way too wide, making the column of text at its left as narrow as about two inches in my screen. It could be shrunk too, but first enlarge the text (or ask the Graphic Lab to do so) so that it doesn't become illegible.
- I think this article ought to be in American English per WP:TIES, but metre is spelled the British way in the article (use
|sp=us
to fix that in {{convert}}). - Metric units such as kilograms are given without a conversion nor a link near the beginning of the article, but conversions are sometimes further below. The reverse would make more sense IMO.
- I might help with those minor points myself later, if I have time. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí 23:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Image review
- Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't shouldn't
- K-25 caption needs editing for clarity. In general, captions should meet same standards for prose and sourcing as article text
- Source link for File:LawrenceComptonBushConantComptonLoomis.jpg appears to be broken
- File:Oak_Ridge_Wise_Monkeys.jpg: does the given licensing tag cover the billboard or the photo?
- File:Oak_ridge_large.gif: check licensing
- File:Oak_Ridge_Y-12_Alpha_Track.jpg: first source link is dead, other two appear broken
- Source and licensing links for File:K25_Aerial.jpg appear broken
- It appears that the DoE site has been reorganized, breaking all of the links to it
- File:Gun-type_Nuclear_weapon.png: on what source is this diagram based?
- File:Thin_Man_plutonium_gun_bomb_casings.jpg: source link is dead
- File:Implosion_Nuclear_weapon.png: on what source was this diagram based?
- File:German_Experimental_Pile_-_Haigerloch_-_April_1945.jpg needs page number
- File:CGP-JPAP-112.jpg: source? Photographer? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done.
- "Oak Ridge K-25 Plant"?
- Swapped for a better version of the same pic
- Yes. Both were created by the MED.
- I said exactly where it was from. Removed tag.
- Yes, the DOE has reorganised its site.
- ditto
- ditto
- See the summary page for details
- I'll asked Fastfission. It could be any one of many.
- I'll see if I can find it. This will take at least a week.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments Can anyone tell me why Julius and Ethel Rosenberg aren't mentioned in the article? I really know that they were involved in this project. TGilmour (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Julius Rosenberg served as a courier, he wasn't actually a spy, and his role in the operation was quite minor. Ethel was Julius' wife, her role in the affair essentially ends there. The only spy of any real significance is Klaus Fuchs. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It is true that Fuchs was the most important spy, but, as my comment in opposition below mentions, this article says nothing about that or anything else about the ongoing soviet espionage at the project, which is liable to leave the average user who is more likely to have heard of the Rosenbergs than Fuchs, puzzled and prone to asking the question TGilmour did. That is why I think you need at least a brief paragraph that covers Soviet espionage at the project. It should indeed state that Fuchs was the most important spy (because he had access to the highest levels of secret information), but it should also mention Harry Gold and David Greenglass, and probably allude to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I don't understand why this wasn't done. The material stolen by Fuchs contributed significantly to the Soviet atomic bomb program after the war, which was surely one of the Manhatten Project's long term legacies, and to not at least mention it is surely a problem in regards to FA criteria 1b (comprehensiveness).Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support I supported this articles A class nomination, and think that it also meets the FA critera - great work Hawkeye Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support.
Oppose.This is mainly a prior notification for my vote, I need to carefully go through the article one more time but I won't get to it until next weekend (apologies). In short from my first read: The article reminds me of an often cited criticism of Wikipedia articles, that they are merely some juxtaposition of cited sentences without a flow. Now I definitely can't understand why some other reviewer thinks that is the case. Too often it unexpectedly jumps from point in time to the next, throws in some keywords as blue links that were crucial to be explained for a better understanding, in other cases it is suddenly explained later in the article while this should have been done at the outset (e.g., for some technical jargon). The presentation of the article reminds me of the time line as logged by some military representative and later brought into book form. Where is the scientists' account? (The civilians perspective?) How and why where what scientists selected to work on the project? Feynman was not a notable scientist to have worked on the project? What was the reaction of the public of the project after the work? Criticism? Einstein having regretted signing the initial letter? (Could all be mentioned in the 'After the war' section.) How did it come that Japan was bombed when the bombs where originally planned for Germany? (Yes, Germany had already surrendered, but Japan was about to surrender and sayings have it that the president just wanted to show off with the new superweapon.) Completely uncritical in every regard, almost glorifying. Nageh (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- Feynman was a notable scientist who worked on the project, but his contribution to the project was not notable. In such a high-level article, only the most notable people can be mentioned. The majority of people who worked on the project were not scientists, so the article should not give this impression. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I only got half-way through when I started today... will finish my review and post my findings/concerns within the next few days, hopefully. I noticed that User:Carcharoth made some very good comments, which point into the same direction as my concerns are lying. Regarding Feynman, I brought him up because the article initially had a reference to one of his books that was later removed, which I found irritating. Never mind if his contributions to the project were not notable, though. Nageh (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Finally got through it. It is impossible to maintain my opposition given the number of small improvements made since the initial nomination (and my earlier opposition almost certainly was too harsh). Even though the article still has a bit of the taste of a time-line as noted by some military personnel it now has a good flow, avoids the earlier pitfalls of introducing terms without properly explaining them, is comprehensive, detailed, and includes helpful and informative images. A very interesting reading all in all, and a great job indeed. A few comments:
- I still think there should be more information in the Personnel section regarding how and from where scientists were recruited, how civilians were recruited, security screening, that civilians largely didn't know what they were working on or operating, etc.
- Should the Medical section be integrated into the Personnel section?
- Knowledge on atomic bomb design quickly spread to other countries through espionage. Should this be mentioned?
- Acronym for Manhattan Engineer District (MED) is used but not introduced.
- Would "Uranium processing" and "Plutonium processing" be better section names?
- What was the focus of the work in after-war times? Improvements of bomb design? Development of the hydrogen bomb? etc.
- In section "Trinity", 3rd paragraph, what does "gadget" refer to? Is this trying to say the same as the 5th paragraph does?
- I think it would be neat to have the last quote in the article under quotation marks. Why is {{Template:cquote}} disapproved by the MOS??
- What is the point of mentioning that a team was sent to the drop sites measuring radiation? Why is it notable that some Robert Bacher was at some place packaging a third core?
- There are a few footnotes in the Notes section? Maybe they can be moved to a separate Footnotes section so it is clear what is additional information and what are merely references?
- Nageh (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 replies:
- Will do.
- Looking at it.
- Not usually.
- Fixed.
- Probably not, as the sections include weapon design.
- The composite oralloy-plutonium core. This is mentioned in the post-war section. Of course, we are only talking about 1946 here. The levitated core, 96 lens charge, the Super etc all lay in the future.
- Moved the link
- No idea
- The scientific missions sent to Japan was very important, and I may expand into a full article. The bit about the third core answers some very common questions: was there another bomb, and how close did it come to being used? And of course... but that's another story.
- I reordered the sentences in the paragraph; please check. My question was not regarding the third core. If Robert Bacher was important enough to be mentioned, and he was the physics department's chief (please check), should he have been mentioned earlier in the article? Why is that sentence important? Why is mentioning of the Ice House (whatever it is) important? If the radioactivity measurements were important to be mentioned this needs to be clarified as well. Nageh (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Bacher wasn't the head of the Physics (F) Division; Fermi was. Bacher headed the Gadget (G) Division. Clarified this. The couple of sentences about the scientific mission to Japan are about an important event, which may warrant its own article. It also goes to the pro-forma, the participation of the MED in the Occupation of Japan, per the infobox. And the Ice House is now the Ice House Memorial, which visitors see when they go to Los Alamos. It does not have it own article, but is notable enough, and could be redlinked if you like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I corrected it later that Bacher was leading the bomb/gadget physics division. Initially, I was looking up our article on Robert Bacher where this is inexactly described. ACK re Ice House, didn't know about its significance. If the measurements on Japan were important then the paragraph should conclude with a sentence like "The measurements carried out provided crucial information on the effects of radioactive contamination on environment and human body." Something like this. Nageh (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I support mentioning this stuff. I did not know it before, and it helps integrate all the design and program work with the section on bombings. I would think measuring impact of a new weapon is pretty important also. (Look at how basically ALL of cancer estimates for nuclear power are based on those two bombings!)TCO (reviews needed) 23:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I reordered the sentences in the paragraph; please check. My question was not regarding the third core. If Robert Bacher was important enough to be mentioned, and he was the physics department's chief (please check), should he have been mentioned earlier in the article? Why is that sentence important? Why is mentioning of the Ice House (whatever it is) important? If the radioactivity measurements were important to be mentioned this needs to be clarified as well. Nageh (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I could.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Note, please make sure a close paraphrasing check is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There's an external jump in the text:
- On 28 June 1941, Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8807 which created the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), ...
External jumps belong in external links or citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The top of this article is a jumble; why isn't the WWII template horizontal, at the bottom of the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The navbox is unwieldy. I've removed it for now, until I can find a better one. The horizontal World War II template which could go down the bottom is not used, because the Manhattan Project is not listed on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Most of the image sizes appear to be unnecessarily forced larger than the default image size contrary to general Wikipedia image policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- "If an exception to the general rule is warranted...." The rule allows for setting images different sizes. It's warranted when it looks better. It's probably more common than not, that default is too small. Recall that it's only recently that we upsized from even smaller. A map that is unreadable at default, is useless as an image. I think the author should make conscious decisions on layout and will provide a generally better product by doing so, than the many articles with tiny images.TCO (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your argument that there is an exception to the rule because "it looks better" isn't particularly persuasive to me because I don't think it looks better. It looks to me like the images are dominating the entire article. Maybe if 1 or 2 of the images were set larger I'd be okay with it, but you seriously think every image in the article should be an exception to the general rule? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The MOS allows a specific exemption for maps and the like. The article contains a number of very beautiful and striking images, including three featured images. There's a couple more that I think should be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the maps and diagrams. That's fine if those are forced larger. I'm talking about all the images of people and buildings that are forced larger than standard when they don't need to be. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I honestly do think they almost always look better this way (larger). This is not a childish like of pictures, but my experience with other webpages. Wiki has long had an issue of under-sizing images (recall that the default itself was even smaller until a couple years ago.) Also, I think this is more about tendancy to think of rules, than to step back and think of the reader and what serves him best. FWIW, my recc is to let the article writer, who is extensively working on layout of the material to make it most appealing, have some artistic freedom. Also, I realize others may have other editorial preferences. So really not sure how to say anything else after this. Take it as a view. Good luck providing the best article for who we all care about...the readers.TCO (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the maps and diagrams. That's fine if those are forced larger. I'm talking about all the images of people and buildings that are forced larger than standard when they don't need to be. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
A container of uranium halide being lowered into an Ames blast furnace[citation needed] for reduction to the metal. Look at the patent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. Props! I cut the "blast" furnace thing and just called it a furnace. I'm actually not clear if that image is just using calcium to make fluorite, the original process, like would be the natural thing to try (all connected to fluorine FAC...it all connects...) or if it is the 2-step Ames process with magnesium. Both are covered in this section. I thought I read the Ames lab page before, from image page, but it is coming up gone now. I would prefer to finesse it if we can't figure out for sure, but am in process of looking for the image description elsewhere. :-( TCO (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It also needs to be addressed at Ames process (a not-so-good article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I found the pic source using the Wayback machine. I think looking at the scale of that thing, that it was the Ames process, using Mg. And numbered. But no way to know for sure. Think the writer of our Wiki Ames Process article inserted the calcium comments based on a discussion which is about the first lab test (and used induction heating of a sample, not that honking chainfall thingie). Anyhow, it's just a metal reduction in a sealed container either way. Not sure where the blast furnace came from, isn't that a steel term? Cleaned up the caption in the other article. I may want to put the pic back as I love it. TCO (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This seems like a very fine article but I have to agree with an earlier comment from TGilmour. Not only is there no mention of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, which might be defensible since they did not actually work on the project, but there is no mention of Harry Gold, or David Greenglass, and the only mention of Klaus Fuchs is that he arrived in 1943 as part of a British mission, with no hint of his involvement with Soviet espionage. There is a brief allusion to an investigation of suspected Soviet espionage at Berkley, but unless I am missing something, there is nothing in this entire article that would even suggest to the reader that the Soviet Union was spying on the project itself. That is a pretty good sized elephant in the room to ignore. You have a section on "Foreign intelligence" that discusses spying on other countries connected with the project; I think you need a similar section on espionage at the project that at least mentions Fuchs, Gould, Greenglass, and probably the Rosenbergs even if it leaves most of the detail to other articles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I support adding a section on "Security". Would cover both the measures taken (the infrastructure, leadership, letteropening all that) as well as the lapses. Could go down with Foreign Intel. (note, I still support the article since it is so stunning, but agree some section would be a nice add.)TCO (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have Stalin and the Bomb on PDF, and might have a few other things lying about, which I could pass along to someone else, if they're interested in writing it. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, I have a copy. I've added a short section, which refers to the main article on the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good job. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I really think an additional line or two on Klaus Fuchs. According to Stalin and the Bomb, (the only book on the list of existing sources that I've read), Fuchs shaved a year or two off of the time that it took for the Soviets to build their bomb by passing along the decisions the Americans made, and passing along the fact that the gun mechanism wouldn't work on detonating plutonium, and instead implosion was needed. I wish I had the page numbers on me, so I could just stick it in there. Since the Soviets detonating their bomb so early was a major contributing factor to the Cold War (the US lost their nuclear monopoly / this very much led to the Red Scare), this is kinda important. At the very least, that the information gained from espionage sped up the Soviet program by years needs to be put in. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good job. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, I have a copy. I've added a short section, which refers to the main article on the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have Stalin and the Bomb on PDF, and might have a few other things lying about, which I could pass along to someone else, if they're interested in writing it. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Support My only concern has been addressed, and this is a superb article that excels at explaining complex technical concepts clearly. It also does does a very good job of balancing coverage of technical, political, and military aspects of a very broad topic. I found it to be very well written and informative. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Kudos. Thanks for addressing this. Nice upgrade.TCO (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments - spent a couple of hours reading through the article and jotted down some thoughts and comments and concerns in a page in my userspace (didn't want to overwhelm the page here). The thoughts are here. If any of that can be usefully copied over here or to the review talk page, please do so. Maybe only copy over stuff that you disagree with, and make other changes as needed? Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC) N.B. Comments on the review I carried out currently being made here - will provide a link to the final version of that when finished. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- One further thing I just noticed, is that the article does not have an external links section. I was quite shocked to realise this (and also partly shocked that I didn't notice its absence until now). I thought this was a standard section that every article has, and certainly there are enough good external links around to justify having such a section for this article. I've dug through the article history (searching for edit summaries that included 'External links') and found that the external links section had been pared down and eventually removed here (December 2010). If you go back some months before that, it is possible to find versions of the article that have a large external links section (December 2009) that certainly needed pruning, but the section being removed in its entirety was not really the ideal outcome. What also mystifies me is that the previous three review processes (GA, and MilHist A-class x2) all failed to spot or question the absence of an external links section (this section was missing in all three versions reviewed). Anyway, there are probably at least 4-5 high-quality sites out there that could form the basis of a reasonable external links section, starting with the Atomic Heritage Foundation. Hopefully others will be able to provide a range of external links that is not excessive and is useful for the reader. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Picking up on the comments regarding comprehensiveness I made in the main review I did, I've found some examples of material that I think should be in the article. Mainly heritage and legacy matters relating to the Manhattan Project.
- Preservation efforts (Preserving the Manhattan Project, DOE's Manhattan Project Preservation Initiative, and Signature Facilities)
- Heritage organisations (AHF - Atomic Heritage Foundation)
- National Park plans (news and Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act - became law but not funded)
- Various reunions and anniversaries (2005 reunion as an example - anniversaries is more tricky as there are lots)
- The demolition and development of various sites (Oak Ridge example)
- Tourists visiting the various sites (atomic tourism paper - also atomic tourism)
- Various monuments and memorials and museums (Los Alamos Historical Museum, Trinity Site National Historic Landmark and Obelisk)
- In other words, the military history and the technology and science has been expertly covered, but the cultural history and ongoing legacy and heritage of the Manhattan Project is missing from the article as it currently stands. Whether this rises to the level of a 1b (comprehensiveness) concern, I'm not sure, as there is a legitimate argument that all this can be covered in a separate article, but at least an overview of this aspect of things is needed in this (the main) article, even if no great amount of detail is added. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments Excellent work, all in all. I haven't finished picking through the article, but I have found some nitpicky things to comment about. This is my first installment of comments:
- I found several instances of anachronistic wording -- the article using contemporary terms (typically the titles of the linked articles) in a context where the article terminology should reflect the usage of the 1940s. I've edited one reference to Y-12. Others that I think it is better to call to the primary author's attention are:
- The link to nuclear graphite in the second paragraph of "Proposals" should be piped so that the article simply calls it "graphite." It didn't get the name "nuclear graphite" until later.
- The third paragraph under "Manhattan Engineer District" states that "the survey team selected one at Oak Ridge, Tennessee." The problem with this is that "Oak Ridge" did not exist as a place at the time of the site selection and the name "Oak Ridge" was bestowed upon the place later. I don't have a copy of the source that is cited in this passage in the article to know what it said. However, in my experience, in the context of the initial site selection, the Tennessee location is typically described vaguely, for example, as "in East Tennessee."
- The first paragraph in the "Oak Ridge" section under "Project sites" has a similar issue. It is anachronistic to say that the the Clinton Engineer Works (CEW) was the "proposed production plant at Oak Ridge," since Oak Ridge did not exist when Groves inspected the area. Additionally, I don't believe that it was called "Clinton Engineer Works" yet at that time, and I'm rather sure that the name "Clinton Engineer Works" never applied to a single "production plant." I don't know what the project was called when Groves visited it and I don't have a copy of the cited source, so I don't know what they say on this subject. I do know that other sources (for example, Johnson and Jackson) indicate that during land acquisition the area was called "Kingston Demolition Range".
- For me as a reader, the second paragraph of the "Oak Ridge" section in "Project sites" is chronologically wrong. The first sentence is about the population in 1945 and the last sentence is about the employment level of one contractor in 1945, but the sentences in between are about things that happened in 1943. This would flow better if it were restructured more chronologically.
- I find it odd that the second paragraph of that "Oak Ridge" section mentions the role of the Turner Construction Company in Oak Ridge community administration, but not the role of Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill in developing the community in the first place. The role of Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill in the design of the town and its housing is widely documented (and apparently was important in the history of the company), but I probably would not recognize the name of Turner if it weren't for my involvement with Wikipedia articles on these topics. The company that administered the town was known as the Roane-Anderson Company -- although it was a subsidiary of Turner, Turner is not widely known here in Oak Ridge. SOM should be added to this part of the article. --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 replies:
- There are some instances of anachronistic wording. The most important one is that I have chosen to use the term "reactor", which is familiar to modern readers, rather than "pile".
- Linked "nuclear graphite" to "graphite"
- Actually, a place called Black Oak Ridge did exist on maps in 1942. The survey team talked about a site at "Ezra, Tennessee". Used this, but as it is a red link, the reader may be left none the wiser.
- Yes, Black Oak Ridge did exist on maps -- and still does. It's the name of the ridge where the townsite was established. Your edits regarding that aspect are right on target. There were many other names (unincorporated communities, ridges, and valleys) on the map in the area that is now Oak Ridge, but none of them applied to a very large part of the area. Elza was the unincorporated community on the northeast edge of Oak Ridge -- where the road from Clinton entered the area. Elza almost certainly was where the survey team entered the area, but it would be an error to say that "Elza" was the location of the project. I've finessed the wording in the sentence to avoid naming a particular place; I hope my wording works for you. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Added a bit about the Kingston Demolition Range.
- Re-ordered this paragraph
- Added SOM to the article.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree with those responses, with the one minor item noted above. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Heritage. If you did a heritage section at the very end, perhaps it is a way to touch on main concerns of last two commenters. I realize the article is long (but good!), but it probably does less damage at the very end (as opposed to adding more content in the middle, as say with added siting discussion). In addition to mentioning parks/memorials, maybe mention the coverage in films like Fat Man and Little Boy.TCO (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Map of project sites: The map of key sites in the article omits some locations that some people consider to have been very significant. Two such sites that come to mind are Dayton, Ohio, documented in the article Dayton Project, and the Mallinckrodt site in St. Louis, Missouri (see http://www.lm.doe.gov/Weldon/Interpretive_Center/Online_Tour/Tribute_to_the_Mallinckrodt_Uranium_Workers.pdf ). Aside: Note that the Dayton and Oak Ridge sites are both associated with "another" spy, George Koval. --Orlady (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Featured Picture crowd had a few other critiques about the clickable map (e.g. Alabama site is not mentioned nor does the clickthrough article have a single word about MP work). I think it's a great device and map, but we should just hone the little errors. [1] TCO (reviews needed) 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- (Where at WP:FP was this map discussed?)
The missing locations identified here so far are Childersburg, Alabama (heavy water plant, and what I infer that TCO is referring to above); Dayton, Ohio (Dayton Project); and St. Louis, Missouri (see above). According to the Brookings Institution, the other U.S. heavy water plants were at Dana, Indiana, and Morgantown, West Virginia. Are there any other missing sites? --Orlady (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)- I thought I linked it already, but might have been within my mega review. Here be a link: [2]. This map is actually pretty old. I think in the spirit of how we've added content and just refined things durings this FA, maybe we should bite the bullet and do a bit more on sites. Would say, (1) add Tube Alloy site on the map (FS can do it with a little cutoout). (2) Add the sites ORL mentions on map. (3) Fix the 'bama link and any other issues the FPers brought up. (4) add a section called "other sites" in text that just combines all the other sites (maybe they get a sentence or two, not whole sections). (5) If warranted, perhaps the UK site should be at a full section as well. Just donno the facts on that one.TCO (reviews needed) 02:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link.
I can't see an encyclopedic purpose in adding the British Isles to the map in order to put the one site there on the same map as the sites in the U.S. and Canada. The caption should clearly indicate that the map is of the sites in the United States and Canada. The UK site can be mapped separately.
Unless I'm missing something, I believe that the mapped location for Sylacauga, Alabama, is supposed to indicate the Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, which is identified in Wikipedia and elsewhere as being in Childersburg. The location reference should be changed. FWIW, I edited the ALAAP article and the Childersburg article to mention the plant's Manhattah Project role. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)- It is easy to stick a cutout in the corner, but perhaps it would not have the scale to show the several different UK sites (I just read our Tube Alloys article and it seems work was not at one central location). Donno.TCO (reviews needed) 03:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- The map that it is based on is in Jones, p. 63. You can see that it shows "Sylacauga, Alabama (Alabama Ordnance Works)". It still seems to be referred to as Sylacauga [3]. The 1987 DOE description says: "A heavy water (P9) plant was constructed and operated on this installation from January 1944 to June 1945." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK, but then we need to add a cited sentence to this article or to the town Wiki article (probably both, if you buy into haveing a section called "other sites" to group all the ones that are less prominent. But for now, it's just kinda baffling for a reader since this article says nothing about that site and then when one clicks on it, the daughter article has no MP content. It's just like some town in Alabama to a reader that did not know that Jones book. At a minimum knowing what the function of the site was (heavy water) would give perspective.TCO (reviews needed) 21:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I found a document [4] that says that the Alabama Ordnance Works at Sylacauga, AL 35150 became the Alabama Army Ammunition Plant at Childersberg, AL 35044. So I am switching the link to the point to Alabama Army Ammunition Plant. It would be nice to add Newport, Morgantown and Willmington but I cannot change the map. Our only options are to keep it or omit it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- MUCH better wikilink now. I don't get you on why we can't change the map and add sites though (including those ORL aasked for). Would think FS or the Graphics Lab can do wwhatever we need. Let's have the right content. The graphics experts can help us make it happen.TCO (reviews needed) 22:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok well I've added the further sites Hawkeye has requested and included Mexico on the map. Trouble is I had issues trying to make all the sites fit and remain readable, things got rather cramped. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 13:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- MUCH better wikilink now. I don't get you on why we can't change the map and add sites though (including those ORL aasked for). Would think FS or the Graphics Lab can do wwhatever we need. Let's have the right content. The graphics experts can help us make it happen.TCO (reviews needed) 22:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- The map that it is based on is in Jones, p. 63. You can see that it shows "Sylacauga, Alabama (Alabama Ordnance Works)". It still seems to be referred to as Sylacauga [3]. The 1987 DOE description says: "A heavy water (P9) plant was constructed and operated on this installation from January 1944 to June 1945." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is easy to stick a cutout in the corner, but perhaps it would not have the scale to show the several different UK sites (I just read our Tube Alloys article and it seems work was not at one central location). Donno.TCO (reviews needed) 03:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link.
- I thought I linked it already, but might have been within my mega review. Here be a link: [2]. This map is actually pretty old. I think in the spirit of how we've added content and just refined things durings this FA, maybe we should bite the bullet and do a bit more on sites. Would say, (1) add Tube Alloy site on the map (FS can do it with a little cutoout). (2) Add the sites ORL mentions on map. (3) Fix the 'bama link and any other issues the FPers brought up. (4) add a section called "other sites" in text that just combines all the other sites (maybe they get a sentence or two, not whole sections). (5) If warranted, perhaps the UK site should be at a full section as well. Just donno the facts on that one.TCO (reviews needed) 02:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- (Where at WP:FP was this map discussed?)
- The Featured Picture crowd had a few other critiques about the clickable map (e.g. Alabama site is not mentioned nor does the clickthrough article have a single word about MP work). I think it's a great device and map, but we should just hone the little errors. [1] TCO (reviews needed) 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS note: Pursuant to VRTS ticket # 2011070810013625 the three images (displayed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Uranium reduction at Ames during the Manhattan Project) are confirmed as public domain. — Cirt (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Featured picture note: FYI, the uranium reduction image gallery just won a Featured Picture award. I think there are a couple other pics in article that are FPs as well. (IOW, the article is well illustrated, an important aspect of making work professional and brilliant and all, and part of our FA criteria.)TCO (reviews needed) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Have the comprehensiveness issues been addressed? I don't see comments from the nominator...which doesn't mean I didn't miss them. Karanacs (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just as a brief note, my concerns over the comprehensiveness have been allayed by this statement by the nominator on the article talk page (i.e. the discussion has partly moved over there). I would hope more time is allowed for this, though I'm also aware that the article has had a fair amount added to it since earlier reviews were done, which can be a problem in and of itself as the added material may satisfy later reviewers, but hasn't had the scrutiny of earlier reviewers. There was also a request for review made at WikiProject Physics - did that ever get replied to? Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- ORL and Carc may feel differently, but my POV is the thing is star-worthy. I do think it's better from some of the additions (few heavy water sites, heritage, spies etc.) but I think it was great before and one could even make an argument not to include them. Obviously the topic can be handled (and has been very well) at book level as well. I'm actually a fan of longer Wiki articles full of "juicy goodness", think it ends up benefiting the reader more (he has section headers). But I was positive before. This thing is a huge tribute to Wiki and more worthwhile than a lot of
cruftobscure stuff written on to rack up stars.TCO (reviews needed) 03:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I am still waiting for a close paraphrasing check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Source check (only online) unfortunately i don't have access to the print sources, but i checked all online sources:
- links 3,26,28,37,65,74,76,122,212,239,242,245,248,265 show no sign of close paraphrasing and source the article information.
- links to another 5 online PDF reports are also OK (see link checker tool for a complete list of checked links).
- link 183 to Baker, Hecker & Harbur has a few small similarities, but as the text describes purely technical details of the basic development process, i see no reasonable way to avoid all similarities (there are only so many ways to say, that water is wet). Adding this only for completeness, should be ok.
- Earwig's tool comes out clean.
- Two small points came up, while digging through the sources:
- section Los Alamos, "Patterson approved ...." The whole sentence and it's factual information (prices, ...) is not sourced by the nearest cite 76. Please check.
- cite 242 "US Strategic Bombing Survey" could use page numbers (3-15?), it has 51 pages.
- I won't vote, knowing not enough about the details of this topic, but hope that check helps. GermanJoe (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Next beer's on me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have fixed both issues. The first one was caused by my interpolation of a quote. The other, I had not looked at before. I had to decide whether to go with the page number of the scan or the document, but because some people may have the hard copy, I have used the real page numbers. You have to add five to get the scan pages. I also switched the ref to the PDF of the whole document. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
@Nom: Did you notice my list of comments further above? Nageh (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Have now. Working on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Resolved. I have removed the "Further reading" section, as nearly all the books are now in the bibliography. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- The problem there is that the bibliography is long list of 31 separate publications, ranging from books to journal articles and government reports and publications. I think this comes down to whether 'further reading' is meant to be "stuff to read after you have read the article and all the sources supplied" or whether it is meant to be "further stuff to read after you have read the article". It also comes down to whether the supplied references are present in lieu of a 'further reading' list, or whether the primary purpose of references is to allow verification of material in the article. My feeling has always been that references are for verification purposes, and a limited subset of the references will be suitable for further reading (though how the reader is meant to discern that subset is another matter). A true 'further reading' section is something that a reader would use after reading the article, if they want to do further reading on the topic, without any presumption that they have read the sources used to construct the article. In other words, 'references' and 'further reading' are sections with different purposes, and treating further reading as a staging post for stuff to be used later as references is valid during the construction phase of an article, but not when it nears maturity. A mature article that has a further reading section should use it to point the reader to material not covered in the article (both in sources used and in sources not used).
It's not something I'm going to make a fuss about here apart from this post (Wikipedia talk:Further reading would be the place for that), but it is something that I hope article writers consider. This whole presumption that readers will mine long bibliographic lists in the references section for further stuff to read is mystifying. Some will. Most won't. Many will pick the wrong things to go and read. Editors familiar with Wikipedia will know to peruse the references for good sources to read more on a topic. Readers most likely won't. Further reading sections should be something like "If you've enjoyed reading this article, here are a couple of suggestions for further reading on this topic." Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- The problem there is that the bibliography is long list of 31 separate publications, ranging from books to journal articles and government reports and publications. I think this comes down to whether 'further reading' is meant to be "stuff to read after you have read the article and all the sources supplied" or whether it is meant to be "further stuff to read after you have read the article". It also comes down to whether the supplied references are present in lieu of a 'further reading' list, or whether the primary purpose of references is to allow verification of material in the article. My feeling has always been that references are for verification purposes, and a limited subset of the references will be suitable for further reading (though how the reader is meant to discern that subset is another matter). A true 'further reading' section is something that a reader would use after reading the article, if they want to do further reading on the topic, without any presumption that they have read the sources used to construct the article. In other words, 'references' and 'further reading' are sections with different purposes, and treating further reading as a staging post for stuff to be used later as references is valid during the construction phase of an article, but not when it nears maturity. A mature article that has a further reading section should use it to point the reader to material not covered in the article (both in sources used and in sources not used).
- Wikipedia:Further reading says that Further reading should not normally duplicate the entries in... any existing alphabetized list of references in the article. The other problem is that if I say what the definitive sources are, then that cannot be attributed to a "reliable source". What I was thinking of is reorganizing the references back into the original categories: "Overall, administrative, and diplomatic histories of the Manhattan Project", "Technical histories", and "Participant accounts". This would make it easier for someone to find books on the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok from my side. You have my support (voted above). Thanks for all your efforts, it has become a fine article indeed! Nageh (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Changes since submitted - this article has been at FAC for well over a month now, and as I raised concern above about the amount of changes made since it arrived here, I though it would be helpful to summarise things. I compared the article on 13 June 2011 (the version before it was nominated on 19 June) with the article as it stands now on 25 July 2011. The diff is 413 intermediate revisions by 30 users, which is a lot of editing at FAC even for an article like this.
- (1) The lead is now longer (reflecting the added material).
- (2) The article as a whole may be longer not sure by how much).
- (3) New sections have been added (Heavy water sites, Ore, Personnel, Espionage, Legacy).
- (4) Some parts reorganised and rearranged (references, uranium/plutonium sections, images).
- (5) A number of new references brought in (compare this and this).
It might be useful to know what percentage the article has expanded by (if any). I know that sometimes fairly major changes or additions are needed while an article is at FAC, but the amount of material added, and the sizes of changes here, makes me start to wonder whether the line has been crossed here between responding to suggestions at FAC, and undertaking expansion and polishing that might be better done outside of FAC. The changes have all been done steadily and all improve the article (as far as I can tell), but the overall effect is harder to judge. The article is likely FA-quality, but I've started to lose track of these changes, and hence don't feel able to support at this time. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- (1) The lead is slightly longer but not a lot longer. It was 432 words, and is now 477 words, which is 10% larger. This is because when I added extra stuff in I also tightened it up.
- (2) The article grew from 12,601 words to 15,063 words. That is nearly 20% larger.
- (3) Eight images were added, plus two maps. And the interactive map was updated to add additional sites.
- (4) It is not usual, in my experience, for an article to sit in FAC for over a month. However, they usually spend most of their time just parked here waiting for reviewers. Yet J. Robert Oppenheimer had 362 revisions by 30 users.
Manhattan Project had a GAC and two ACRs before coming to FAC; but a number of reviewers only came to it only at FAC. I must confess that all along I kept thinking that all would be well and that it would be passed in the end. It will be disapponting if it fails. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I wouldn't get too discouraged. Few nominees seem to succeed in sailing through FAC, and it can be a challenging process for certain. But the end result is beneficial, and even those articles that fail FAC the first time are now that much closer to being FA ready. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I may also add here that a lot of articles at FAC run through less revisions solely because they are less complicated, less controversial, less comprehensive (there is only so much to say about niche topics), and because many reviewers focus on MOS issues, reference formatting, and images, solely. In this light I think it is quite normal that this article was going through a more lengthy review process. (For comparison, look at Logarithm, which was sitting for more than 3 months!) Just my 2 cents. Nageh (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
- Sure, as I said, the article is very likely FA-quality already, and the complexity of the subject is undoubtedly why some work on it has taken place during the FAC (compared to other subjects), but the point needed to be made that a fair amount of changes have taken place. Sometimes, in such cases, it is best to take a few weeks outside FAC to address everything, and then come back. Other times, you can try and keep going within the initial FAC nomination. At some point, the article will become FA, of that there is little doubt, but whether sooner rather than later is the question (sometimes two FACs are better in the long run than one). Anyway, I'm clearly not going to oppose, but I'm pointing out that the amount of work done within a FAC is one consideration (among many), and I wanted to explain that I don't have the time to fully review the whole article again (which is what I'd need to do for any support). And thanks, Hawkeye, for the numbers and percentages. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
- 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)