Talk:Manhattan Project/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Initial comments

This is a very good article, in my opinion. I have gone through it and done a light copy edit, section by section. Please review my changes and tweak as necessary. I have the following other comments/suggestions:

in the lead "Tall Boy" - is this correct? It seems to link to a British convention bomb;
- Ooops. Should be "Little Boy". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead "Fat Man" is mentioned, but the term doesn't seem to be explained in the prose. In the Thin Man section, there is a photo caption that indicates that there is a difference between "Thin Man" and "Fat Man";
- Done. Added "Fat Man". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
watch out for overlink, some examples include: "Oak Ridge" and "Belgian Congo";
- Removed these. Also a few others. As a top-level article, it has a role of tying together a plethora of subarticles, but in the process of pulling them together, some over-linking occurred. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Hanford subsection, "Where possible, the Army allowed the crops to be harvested, but this was not always possible" - repeated word "possible" - could this perhaps be reworded?
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"went critical" - could this be explained, or wikilinked perhaps?
- Added an explanation in the Chicago section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Electromagnetic separation section, "By April K-25 was producing enriched uranium sufficiently good to feed directly into the Beta tracks" - "sufficiently good" stands out for me here. Do you mean "of sufficient quality"?
- Changed to "sufficiently enriched" Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Gaseous diffusion section you have wikilinked "Cost Plus Fixed Fee", but I think this could be wikilinked earlier as it seems to have been mentioned earlier;
- Removed link. Did you spot a difference between the contract with DuPont and the one with Halliburton?
  - Yes, I was struck by that. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Gaseous diffusion section, you have both "six stage" and "six-stage";
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Weapon design section there is a Main article link to "Little Boy", but the term doesn't seem to be explained in the prose;
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Reactor design section, this might need rewording: "develop a process for hot dipping process without success" ("process...process");
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Reactor design section, "Disappointingly, most cans canned slugs initially failed the tests..." (should "cans" have a possessive apostrophe here? I'm not sure myself);
- No, deleted "cans". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Reactor design section, I think the times should have colons per WP:MOSTIME, e.g "0300" should be "03:00";
- Ecch. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Reactor design section, I think there is a missing word here but I'm not sure exactly what it should be "in which the reactor had 1,500 arranged in a circle..." (1,500 what?);
- tubes. Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki section, why was Kyoto removed from the list of targets? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added "on the grounds of its historical and religious significance" Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for these responses. Looks good now. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

there are a few disambig links found by the tools which should be fixed: [3];
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ext links largely okay, but one reports as possibly broken: [4];
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
images mainly lacking Alt text. It is not a GA requirement, but you might consider adding it in later. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

All issues dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

No issues.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

No issues.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

No issues.

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

Lots of recent changes and given its visibility possibly a target for some drive-by edits, but nothing that consistutes an edit war, IMO.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

No issues.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Excellent work with what is a very big topic. Passes GA in my opinion. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]