Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:18, 28 June 2011

Manhattan Project

Manhattan Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Manhattan Project/archive1

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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:

1. 2004. Corrected
2. Removed the unused sources
3. Removed unsed refs, consolidated into alphabetic order
4. Added ref
5. Done
6. Corrected
7. Corrected
8. Added
9. 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)

Hawkeye7 replies:

1. Will go through and look for missing commas
2. Added "which, it was hoped,"
3. 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:

1. DuPont was involved only with the Plutonium, which was indeed nearly "half of the project". They did no work with Uranium.
2. The sea story is correct.
3. 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 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)
  • I can try, by adding an inflation template. I thought there used to be one and some editor removed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 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:

"The Manhattan Project was the effort" - "an effort" maybe? TGilmour (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it was the effort that created the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perceived. TGilmour (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• 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.​_plé​ 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)

1. Done.
2. "Oak Ridge K-25 Plant"?
3. Swapped for a better version of the same pic
4. Yes. Both were created by the MED.
5. I said exactly where it was from. Removed tag.
6. Yes, the DOE has reorganised its site.
7. ditto
8. ditto
9. See the summary page for details
10. I'll asked Fastfission. It could be any one of many.
11. 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)

• 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

• • Turned into an external reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 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)
  • I decided to be WP:BOLD and add it to the WWII template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Most of the image sizes appear to be unnecessarily forced larger than the default image size contrary to general Misplaced Pages 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)

A container of uranium halide being lowered into an Ames blast furnace 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)