Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Project Excalibur/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 August 2019 [1].

Project Excalibur

[edit]
Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rather strange event in the history of the cold war.

It involves Edward Teller, Ronald Reagan, nuclear bombs and freaking lasers. If that were not enough, it's also filled with leaking top secrets, railroading people, lies, and is the basis for one of the major steps on LLNL's long downward spiral in the eyes of Washington.

The article went through a lengthy (due largely to my workload) but relatively uncontentious milhist-A-class review. I draw attention to the threads on the talk page, make of them what you will. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Only a handful of drive-by comments at present, I'm afraid. The article is very, very long; I'll try to find time to read it all, but I can't promise.

  • For consistency you should stick with one or other of "exoatmospheric" and "exo-atmospheric".
  • Similarly it would be as well to decide between "focused" and "focussed"
  • The phrase "a number of..." appears a number of times – ten to be precise. It's generally a woolly and unnecessary phrase: "outlined a number of possible uses" would be shorter and better as "outlined possible uses" and so on. Where it is used instead of "a few" or "many" it would be briefer and clearer to say "a few" or "many". Tim riley talk 07:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: All fixed! !!!!

Comments from Praemonitus

[edit]

That is a long read, perhaps even WP:TOOLONG? Here's a few issues I noticed:

  • The article mixes "Xray" and "X-ray", "meters" and "metres". Please be consistent.
I cannot see any instances of "xray" or "metres". I assume someone else fixed the.
  • There are a few unexplained acronyms: DoD, SDIO, MX.
Fixed. MX is not really an acronym.
  • What does "small laser gain" mean?
Simplified.
  • "George Chapline had also been studying the X-ray laser concept": 'also' is redundant.
Removed.
  • It would seem like, per MOS:DATETIES, this article has strong national ties to the U.S., so the perhaps date format should match? E.g. "13 September 1978", "23 February 1981", "4 September", "23 March 1983", ...
Uhhh, that is the format I see them in.
  • "They calculated that the system produced...": who is 'They'? The "R Program"?
The team running the experiment. They were not part of the weapons program.
  • "...recent advances in Soviet weapons would soon put them in a position to threaten the US": this was in 1982? The Russians had the R-7 in 1957, so what sort of threat is he suggesting?
There is an overarching bit of history taking place at this time that I have not had time to write about. Through the 1970s the Soviets began upgrading their ICBM INS systems, as were the US, to support MIRV. The US estimates of the accuracy of these systems was dramatically overstated (as was typical of the era) and suggested that the Soviets were able to attack US missile control centers. This was immediately ascribed to the Soviets attempting to develop a first-strike capability, which they combined with thier large national civil defense system, in order to start and "win" a nuclear war against the US that was predicted to take place sometime in the early-mid-1980s. This was known as the "window of vulnerability", and was the major reason that Carter, and especially Reagan, spent so much upgrading their own weapons systems.
  • "...the system would only be useful against missiles at short range...": 'short' is vague.
Explained.
  • "And once the rocket had stopped firing": starting this sentence with the conjunction "And" seems unnecessary, and is probably grating to some people.
Removed.
  • "...would be 1,000 times more powerful...": should clarify that they mean the nuclear device rather than the laser. The latter is covered further down.
They do not, this is the energy of the laser itself.
  • "The fact that it occurred the same day as a critical review in the influential journal Science was dismissed": Seems ambiguous. Dismissed by whom and to whom?
Clarified.
  • "There is also considerable debate on whether or not Excalibur...": 'also' is redundant.
Removed.
  • The "Lasers" section could perhaps use a simple illustration of a ruby laser structure for clarity.
Added.
  • "X-ray lasers" section: wait, so the transition is 334 million times less likely but the excited state is extremely short-lived. Logically this seems contradictory, so a little clarification would be good.
This is the result of delivering an entire atomic bomb's worth of energy in a couple of nanoseconds. It's brute forcing the problem.
  • "dispersion angle", "solid angle", "collimated": these technical terms needs a link.
All added.
  • "...ablation generated shock waves...": unexplained technical jargon. What does this have to do with X-ray attacks?
Didn't write that para, removed it entirely.
  • "Soviets Flight Testing Nuclear Bomber" has an online link available from aviationweek.com.
Ohhh, nice!

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

@Maury Markowitz: Where are we with addressing the above comments? I've added this to the Urgents list but ultimately it may need to be archived soon if it doesn't attract additional review and support for promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are not pinging me so I'm not seeing them. I'll get started on these now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: again --Laser brain (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, I had a look at this when it was at A-class review. Overall, it looks pretty good to me, although the science is beyond me. I have the following comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • for the hatnote, it would probably be best to write at least a short, well cited stub as they shouldn't contain redlinks per WP:REDHAT
  • just wouldn't work --> "just would not work"
  • simply couldn't be --> "simply could not be"
Both done.
  • to arrange an interception --> "achieve an interception"?
Actually, that means something slightly different.
  • for citation # 4, please include the work or publisher (looks like it might be CBS News?)
Done.
  • page number or location for citation # 44?
Done.
  • same as above for citations 84 and 96?
84 already has it (p4) the second is the entire work.
Sorry, I meant citation 94 and 96. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has changed number again -- to clarify, it is the "Blumberg & Panos" citation that I think needs a page number. Otherwise, I think all my comments have been addressed, so I've added my support above. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a typical ICBM is 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) in diameter, at a distance of 1,000 kilometers (620 mi) that represents a solid angle of 10−12 steradian (sr) --> "A typical ICBM is 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) in diameter, at a distance of 1,000 kilometers (620 mi), which represents a solid angle of 10−12 steradian (sr)"?
Done.
  • in the Further reading section, the Rotblat and Hellman source is inconsistently formatted
Reformatted.
  • there is a mix of date formats, for instance compare "December 14, 1985" with "8 October 2008"
Reformatted.
  • are there any more categories the article could be added to? Currently it only sits in two, which seems a bit limited
Open to any suggestions! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Category:Directed-energy weapons? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • and as a sort of flash bulb for taking} Merge flash bulb here.
Done.
  • concepts. Hagelstein arrived in May 1975, Replace "in" with "on".
I believe "on" only applies when the date is complete.
  • job at the lab with the aim of leading the Replace "with the aim of leading" with "intending to lead".
Done.
  • technology to the policy makers Merge policy makers.
Apparently US is two words, UK is hyphen.
  • (BAllistic Missile Boost Intercept) Maybe decapitalise the "A" here.
It is part of the acronym.
  • Reagan made the decision to announce Remove "made the decision" with decided.
Done.
  • MX-like missile firing for 180 seconds missile firing needs a hyphen here.
No, this is a "missile, firing", not "a missile-firing ship".
  • for the free electron laser Free electron needs a hyphen.
This is the way it is used in every text.
  • Given the light weight of the Excalibur-type Light weight needs a hyphen.
No, this is "the light weight" not "a light-weight material".
  • inclined to call it an earthshattering report Earthshattering needs a hyphen between earth and shattering.
Direct quote from source.
  • Third generation weapon Needs a hyphen between Third generation.
Direct quote.
  • the laboratory for that ten-year period Remove "that ten-year period" here with "those ten years".
Done.
  • At that point any one of the atoms You mean "anyone"?
No, any one.
  • their atoms entirely, producing a gas of nuclei and electrons No "a" here.
"Some kleenex" vs. "A kleenex". A singular object is being referred to.
  • The "X-ray based attacks"' name needs a hyphen between based attacks.
It is not a single adjective before a noun.
  • the steel guy-wires white hot White hot needs a hyphen.
Same case here, "white" is an adjective *for* "hot", as opposed to "white-hot steel".
  • rods needed to be long and skinny You mean belong?
As opposed to short.
  • amplification with a laser gain of about 5 5 should be five.
Done.
  • the president another three times.[31][30] Order ref in numerical order.
Done.
  • If there are scientific article should have metric units as primary units.
I use the units as originally specified in the source material.
  • I see a lot of "howevers" here some of them should be deleted by MOS:HOWEVER
Guilty, as charged. There were 10, now there are two.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got all of them! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • The source link for File:Karl R. Bendetsen.jpg is dead.
Fixed.
  • As is that for File:George A. Keyworth, II 1981, 4.jpg.
Fixed.
  • And File:C13571-8a.jpg
Fixed.
  • And File:Space Laser Satellite Defense System Concept.jpg
Found on thousands of pages, do we need to pick one?
Yes. Preferably the original, or as close to the original as you can manage. As has been the admirable case with the other images in this article.
  • And File:Brilliant pebbles.jpg
Fixed.
  • All images require alt text.
I do not believe this is true? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An FA needs to be fully MoS compliant. The MoS states "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text. See WP:ALT for more information." under MOS:ACCIM. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. This has come up in the past and invariably the result was that a caption OR alt was required. I assume this was changed?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know. I got hit with it a couple of times a few months back and dug into it. So far as I can see the current MoS requirement is pretty clear and pretty inflexible. (I didn't want it to be when I first researched it.) It also gives a decent explanation of why it is needed and what goes wrong if there is just a caption. So when I do image reviews I always check it. (Currently having a similar discussion on another FAC, so it probably is new.)
I removed it instead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Always irritating when you have to do that. I once had to remove every image from an ACR. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rather mild irritation in this case... I didn't add the image originally :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "In space, the lack of atmosphere to block the X-rays allowed attacks on missiles thousands of kilometers away." So was it launched from a satellite in space or from the ground? The article states that both were considered but this should be briefly pointed out in the lead.
It was always fired in space, the original source could be anywhere - a satellite, a ship, even an aircraft.
  • " showed a film exposed the output of plasmas of chlorine, calcium and titanium". " showed a film which had been exposed the output of plasmas of chlorine, calcium and titanium"?
Changed it another way.
  • "The most pointed of these was Sobel'man's statements". What does "most pointed" mean here?
Changed it, but I'm not sure its an improvement.
  • Why is Diablo Hawk italicised?
It's a nickname. The actual name is some classified string of letters and digits.
  • "Peter Hagelstein was putting himself through MIT". Is this AmerEng for studying for an undergraduate degree?
It is, but changed.
  • "It was at about the same time that the University of Hull publicly announced they had succeeded in making an X-ray laser." Why is this relevant? The research does not appear to have been used by the Project Excalibur people.
Just general background on the entire x-ray field.
  • "Even if the Soviets launched a full-scale attack, it would limit US casualties to 30 million. That was considered acceptable?
Well, there's a reason they called Teller a mad scientist! But given that the projections at that time were 90% of the population would die, 30 million is a bargain.
  • "only to receive a yet another report" This is ungrammatical.
Indeed.
  • "This led to a 4 September meeting without the rest of the High Frontier group." Obviously with the president but you should say so.
Yup.
  • "Wood used this argument during congressional meetings on SDI. When asked about the possibility of a Soviet version of Excalibur and what a US response might be, Wood stated that X-ray lasers could be used against any object in space, referring to this as a "counter-defensive" role. This claim was quickly turned against him; if Excalibur could destroy a Soviet SDI system, then a Soviet Excalibur could do the same to theirs. Instead of ending the threat of nuclear weapons, Excalibur appeared to end the threat of SDI. More worryingly, when one considered such scenarios, it appeared the best use of such a system would be to launch a first strike; Excaliburs would destroy US defenses, their missiles would then attack the US missile fleet, and remaining Excaliburs would blunt the enfeebled response.[67] Miller immediately sent a letter countering Wood's claims, but the damage was done." I am confused what this paragraph is saying. You say that Wood's claim was turned against him, but then that a letter countering his claims was too late. Were Wood or his opponents talking up the danger of a Soviet Excalibur?
Sort of, hopefully, my edit clarifies this slightly. Basically, Teller and Wood had said "the Soviets are doing it so we have to" for decades (and not just them, see policy by press release). So Wood was playing this game again. But that led the committee members to ask what the US could do if the Soviets did build their own. And that's when the crap hit the fan, due to what appears to be a careless comment. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still confused. If the committee members had destroyed Wood's arguments, then why did Miller, who you present as a sceptic about Excalibur, need to reply to them, and what does "but the damage was done" mean - for or against Excalibur? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, the confusion appears to be about Miller. Miller was definitely not a skeptic once he assumed control in 1985. He initially set a conservative message, but once in control of the arms side (which happened in 1985) he was in full support. It was Miller that presented the misleading information to SDIO, and Miller that sent Woodruff to internal exile and took over his post. His attempts to defuse Wood's words were very much in keeping with his other actions around that time. I believe this is fairly well covered now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I think you just discovered a Grammarly bug.
  • "These devices demonstrated" What devices? Maybe "Goldstone demonstrated".
Even better...
  • Over the protests of colleagues, Teller mislead the highest officials of the United States Government" misled?
If only it were missiled.
  • "Others report that Teller's going around the official channels" Does "going around" mean here using all of them or bypassing them?
Yes, fixed.
  • " It is said that Reagan's "kitchen cabinet" was pushing for some sort of action on BMD" Who said?
Improved.
  • "Others give the nod" This is too colloquial.
Improved.
Linked.
  • "The main problem in producing such a device is that the probability of any given transition between energy states depends on the cube of the energy. Comparing a ruby laser that operates at 694.3 nm to a hypothetical soft X-ray laser that might operate at 1 nm, this means the X-ray transition is 6943, or a little over 334 million times less likely." I do not follow this. You appear to jump from the cube of the energy to the cube of the wavelength.
Ahhh, well, yes. That's how it works. e=hw.
  • "In order to damage a booster, it is estimated that about 3 kJ/cm² would need to hit the airframe." This is the first mention of the word 'booster' and the only mention of 'airframe'. It will mean nothing to the great majority of readers.
I am not convinced of that, but I've changed it anyway.
  • "The enhancement of the brightness compared to the unfocused output from the bomb is η / d θ {\displaystyle \eta /d\theta } {\displaystyle \eta /d\theta }, where η {\displaystyle \eta } \eta is the efficiency of conversion from bomb X-rays to laser X-rays, and d θ {\displaystyle d\theta } {\displaystyle d\theta } is the dispersion angle." This will only be comprehensible to experts and in my view does not belong in a Wikipedia article.
Technical articles, and this definitely falls into that category, generally do include math.
  • MIRV - this should be linked.
It is, is there another one that should be? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "BAMBI used small heat-seeking missiles" This implies that BAMBI went ahead, which does not seem to be what you are saying. "BAMBI would have used"?
There's a continual thread on this in various MOS related pages, and I'm not going to wade into it now. But basically, this is the way it should be according to The Powers that Be.
  • There is an error message on citation 3.
I guess someone fixed it? I do no see an error.
  • I could not understand some parts of this article, probably due to my lack of technical knowledge, but, as I have said above, I think it is crucial to explain in the lead that Excalibur could be launched from land, sea or space but could only be fired in space. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already reworded that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • Since you mention Hagelstein's PhD thesis, why not supply a reference to it for the reader? ([2])
Done.
  • While LLNL is defined in the lead, suggest doing so again when it first appears in the body.
Added.
Linked and linked.
  • Fn 88 is the article and Bennet the politician referred to by note h, so why not link it here too and name him instead of "one politician"?
OK.
  • Supply the URL for Stevens, Charles, "Status of the x-ray laser: the exclusive real story" [3]
Done.
  • The link on Thomson Strategic defense of X-ray initiative – X-ray laser research goes to findarticles.com, which isn't very useful. Try the correct URL [4]
Didn't add these, but I'll link.
  • Link Peter Goodchild, T. A. Heppenheimer (whose name is wrong), David Perlman, Joseph Rotblat, Robert Scheer, Herbert York
  • Sourcing is inconsistent. Some newspaper articles are in the bibliography, and some are not. Suggest moving fn 5, 18, 22, 38, 42, 52, 68, 88, 94, 106, 107, 131, 132 to the bibliography.
    It is very consistent - items used in more than one location are in the bib, one-offs are not. This saves the reader having to click multiple times to get what they need. If you have counterexamples let me know.
    Fn 5 appears twice. It is the only exception. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only two journals have ISSNs
  • Only one book has a location
Not updating.
Very nice article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Project_Excalibur/archive1&oldid=909689376"